Super Star Destroyer Vs Enterprise

Super Star Destroyer (Star Wars) Vs Enterprise (Star Trek)

Fun match in theory, but I am not sure the super star destroyer would do very well against the Enterprise. I think the Enterprise would zip in and out of warp speed to essentially attack at will.

Enterprise with the easy victory. What say you?

Related Posts:



Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion.

Comments being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion can lead to the banhammer getting used. You can read more about our comments policy here.



1 2 3 7 Next »

685 Comments on "Super Star Destroyer Vs Enterprise"

  1. AlphaCommando February 23, 2009 at 6:38 am -      #1

    17 kilometers of Doonium, Durasteel, Turbolasers, Torpedo Tubes, Hangars, and Stormtrooper Marines…

    Vs.

    A series of ships(because there have been like over a dozen Enterprises) not longer than a few hundred meters which are not designed solely for military uses like the Executor-class is….

    Now the weaponry on the Enterprises are somewhat powerful, however; it pales both numerical and overall power-wise to the Executor-class’ armaments. Not to mention the defensive shielding on the Executor-class is all but indestructible…

  2. Thepocalypse February 23, 2009 at 7:26 am -      #2

    Enterprise is a very capable, very powerful ship, but it simply cannot stand up to a Super Star Destroyer. I assume you are referring to an imperial star cruiser (pictured) and not the even more powerful Star Dreadnaught (also commonly referred to as a Super Star Destroyer).
    The Enterprise does not have sufficient firepower to breach the shields of a Star Cruiser, as they can defend against much larger ships with ease.
    “Enterprise would zip in and out of warp speed to essentially attack at will.”
    Super Star Destroyers have over 16000 mounted turbolasers, 250 concussion missiles launchers with 30 missiles each, 250 heavy Ion cannons, 500 point defense lasers, a tractor beam, 30 AT-ATs and 40 AT-STs for interior defense, and thousands of TIE fighters. It’s doubtful Enterprise could even get a shot fired before they were annihilated. Any attempt to beam on board for an interior assault would lead to death at the hands of the 38000 troops aboard.
    In a drawn out conflict, a Super Star Destroyer can remain in space for six years. Ruining any idea the Enterprise crew might get about outlasting their opponent.

  3. L-W February 23, 2009 at 9:34 am -      #3

    “I think the Enterprise would zip in and out of warp speed to essentially attack at will.” – Admin

    The Federation Enterprise class warp drive, the maximum yield of which is warp ten, travels in excess of one thousand light years per hour, which is impressive, but…

    …The average Hyper-Drive engine unit allows for non-military frigates to exceed speeds of 6666.7 light years an hour. Military vessels, equipped with far more powerful engines, can maximize these speeds to over ten thousand light years per hour. The Star Trek equivalent of which would be classified (According to the Federation scaling system) at around Warp twenty five. Speeds that would leave even the Borg green with envy (If gangrene and severe mutation had not already accomplished this).

    In this case it will be the Super Star Destroyer doing the zipping, with her superior weapons load out (Over twenty thousand mounted weapons versus the fifteen of the Enterprise) propelling the Federation warship towards certain oblivion.

    – – –

    This match is like sending a Mine Sweeper armed with a .50 cal weapon to engage a modern day Destroyer armed to the metaphorical teeth with an array of 15 inch guns, 20mm Vulcan cannons and guided ship-to-ship missiles. Utterly futile in every respect.

  4. fooby February 23, 2009 at 10:00 am -      #4

    “30 AT-ATs and 40 AT-STs for interior defense”

    how do at-ats and at-st fit in the hallways?

  5. admin February 23, 2009 at 10:46 am -      #5

    @L-W – Thanks for going easy on me :-P

  6. Thepocalypse February 23, 2009 at 10:52 am -      #6

    “how do at-ats and at-st fit in the hallways?”
    They don’t. They’d be in the hangar, so Enterprise would have no way of entering the Destroyer directly and attacking the interior.

  7. Thepocalypse February 23, 2009 at 10:53 am -      #7

    Last comment cont’d:
    I just asked a friend and AT-STs are small enough to fit within the corridors of an SSD.

  8. Locutus February 23, 2009 at 11:37 am -      #8

    “In this case it will be the Super Star Destroyer doing the zipping.”

    I doubt it would in combat. The Enterprise is far more maneuverable at impulse and warp and also has a superior effective weapons range.

  9. Matapiojo February 23, 2009 at 11:50 am -      #9

    “@L-W – Thanks for going easy on me”

    You know thats how he rolls, baby!

  10. Thepocalypse February 23, 2009 at 12:11 pm -      #10

    “The Enterprise is far more maneuverable at impulse and warp and also has a superior effective weapons range.”
    The SSD could just ram Enterprise. It’s too large for Enterprise to bank out of the way in time.

  11. L-W February 23, 2009 at 9:24 pm -      #11

    “I doubt it would in combat. The Enterprise is far more maneuverable at impulse and warp”

    Wrong.

    The Impulse drive allows for slight variations in cruising speed depending the technology of the particular enterprise model and era. Earlier models could achieve no more than .02c (Sub lightspeeds), whilst even the latest Voyager model can travel at Impulse speeds no faster that .66c.

    Compare this to the cruising speeds of the SSD’s Solar Ionization Reactor, which can exceed .95-.99c (Just below relativistic velocity of true lightspeed) in combat (The slowest recorded combat speeds being at around .75c) and we can already begin to formulate quite easily who can produce the greater combat speeds.

    “and also has a superior effective weapons range.”

    The maximum effective range of Star Trek mounted weaponry is estimated to be at around an estimated eight million kilometers, or 21.5 light seconds. Impressive, but the SSD mounted Turbolasers (Of which there are sixteen thousand of) can excel their ordinance at an effective range of 17,987,547 kilometers per light minute, or 299792.45 light seconds.

    – – –

    So let’s see. You have a three hundred meter long ship firing at most fifteen mounted weapons, with a cruising speed of less than a third of the opposing vessel. Against a 17km behemoth with tens of thousands of mounted weapons capable of exceeding effective ranges of fifteen thousand times that of the smaller vessel.

    You do only have to realize that the SSD can literally crush the Enterprise with the ‘wake’ of a Hyper-Space jump, to understand how futile this ultimately is.

  12. Locutus February 23, 2009 at 9:30 pm -      #12

    “The SSD could just ram Enterprise. It’s too large for Enterprise to bank out of the way in time”

    The Enterprise could easily move out of the way. The acceleration and banking speeds of most Federation starships are superior compared to the Imperial starship’s sublight speeds.

  13. L-W February 24, 2009 at 1:06 am -      #13

    What surprises me the most (For me personally, since this would be the first avenue I would explore) is no one here has taken energy output when comparing their respective arsenals and shielding, vital assets when discussing the outcome of fictional starship battles.

    The yields attributed to Enterprise weaponry can achieve a maximum output of 64 megatons, larger in explosive power than any nuclear weapon deployed on modern day earth. Whilst the deflector shields of the median Enterprise vessel can sustain around ninety Photon Torpedos before failing all together. Meaning that the Enterprise could only ever hope to sustain over 5760 megatons of damage (Or 5.76 Gigatons) before energy shields are nullified. Exposing the Hull to fatal structural damage.

    In comparison, the explosive output of a single Heavy Turbolaser bolt is estimated to be at around 200 Gigatons, so naturally protecting vessels against such offensive weaponry would require equally insane energy barriers (Deflector, Ray, Particle etc.). In this case, the shielding of the average Star Destroyer can absorb or deflect impacts of up to 24,000 megatons (24 Gigatons) as if they were flies impacting the windshield, often requiring yields in excess of 50,000 megatons before there is a noticeable strain or decline in the operation of the shields themselves.

    This ultimately means that the Enterprise would have to successfully deploy nearly eight hundred Photon Torpedos within quick succession, before the Deflector shields of a normal Star Destroyer begins to even feel the strain of an attack. How this would compare to the energy shielding of a Super Star Destroyer is pure conjecture at this point, but the exponentially greater energy output would lead me to believe that there is nowhere near enough ordinance onboard the Enterprise to even cause a minor drop in shielding.
    Meanwhile the Enterprise is going to find itself in deep (And most likely fatal) trouble with just one successful Turbolaser strike.

    Finally, just so we can wrap it up, let’s calculate the Enterprise’s probability of survival.

    You have a vessel which can only sustain one bolt of opposing enemy fire before being crippled. You have at most 6,000-8,000 turrets firing two bolts every second. Each bolt travelling in speeds measured at light minutes.
    By the time you’ve finished reading the above sentence; over 160,000 Turbolaser bolts have already been fired. By reading this sentence, another 80,000 have left the barrel.

    Within the time span of sixty seconds, judging from the variables of vessel speed, energy output and ordinance velocity, what are the odds of the Enterprise surviving?

    First correct answer wins a medal.

  14. Locutus February 24, 2009 at 2:02 am -      #14

    …..Over 9000?

  15. Locutus February 24, 2009 at 3:25 am -      #15

    “The yields attributed to Enterprise weaponry can achieve a maximum output of 64 megatons”

    We have seen much higher yields in many episodes.

    One Example:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_jbRJb5NBY&feature=related

    Go to time 1:40

    That yield of that torpedo had to be in the many hundreds of megatons.

  16. Thepocalypse February 24, 2009 at 6:14 am -      #16

    “The Enterprise could easily move out of the way. The acceleration and banking speeds of most Federation starships are superior compared to the Imperial starship’s sublight speeds.”
    I doubt it could dodge the full mass of the SSD in time from a central position.
    Also, see L-W’s:
    “You do only have to realize that the SSD can literally crush the Enterprise with the ‘wake’ of a Hyper-Space jump, to understand how futile this ultimately is.”

  17. AlphaCommando February 24, 2009 at 6:32 am -      #17

    I usually consider all that, I usually keep it to myself for I despise excessive typing unless I feel something really needs to be moved across….

    Statistical analysis of survival is somewhat conjecture in a battle, tho I would place chance of survival at 0% (or like 1^-50000 if you say any random event like everyone on the ship having a simultaneous Grade 6 cerebral aneurysm and dying where they stand happens). Considering the Enterprise can’t run, fight or cower in any way shape or form.

  18. Locutus February 24, 2009 at 5:48 pm -      #18

    “I doubt it could dodge the full mass of the SSD in time from a central position.”

    Fed ships use artificial mass reduction that greatly enhance acceleration.
    In TMP, we saw the old Constitution class accelerate from 0 to half lightspeed within a few seconds. In TNG “Peak Performance” we see the Ent-D zip around from one side of a planet to the other in about 2 seconds.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8J2LIDv8yY

    :16
    We see two of the largest classes, Ambassador and Nebula, execute quick and tight 120-degree turns.

  19. L-W February 24, 2009 at 6:35 pm -      #19

    “That yield of that torpedo had to be in the many hundreds of megatons.”

    Which the Enterprise is unlikely to carry, since any level 5 torpedo excelling more than 1.5kg in explosive charge violates strategic arms limitation treaties, the Enterprise only ever procures these materials for higher yields (They have no means of replicating them) from other races or plot contrivances.

    Even then, the theoretical level 10 warhead is still far too weak to do any significant amount of damage to the SSD shielding; and still tragically pales in comparison to even the *small* Turbolaser turrets of an Imperial Vessel.

    @ Alpha

    The only means of putting all conjecture to rest is to present every bit of analytical and canon information available so that *both* sides may understand the implications of their supposition.

    Where would the Star Wars debate have gone if both sides had simply devolved into:

    “A Star Destroyer shoots further”
    “No, a Covenant Cruiser shoots further and faster and moves quicker”
    “No it doesn’t”
    “Yes it does”
    “No way”
    “Yes way”

    …And so on and so forth.

    As my first semester Professor once said:
    “You may have the greatest idea in the world, but unless you express it to the rest of us it is as valuable and inconsequential as the empty space in your head.”

  20. The Chosen One February 24, 2009 at 8:29 pm -      #20

    Star trek sickens me i refuse to come up with a real argument i dont want to research star trek

  21. AlphaCommando February 24, 2009 at 9:05 pm -      #21

    True, I will take that into consideration next time.

  22. Matapiojo February 25, 2009 at 12:00 am -      #22

    @The Chosen One – “Star trek sickens me i refuse to come up with a real argument i dont want to research star trek”

    First, you have hardly ever contributed to any match in a way that suggest you have done ANY research at all.

    Second, your first post in this fight is to make an unrequested retort to explain your inefficiencies towards informing yourself about a subject within a site that is based around people presenting arguments that either defend or dispute attributes of said subject.

    With that in mind, would it be possible for you to muster enough common sense to conclude your “contribution” by explaining why you took part in a match with a subject you evidently loathe to such extent that you don’t even want to hear about it?

    Have at it, I’m looking forward to your answer.

  23. Megafire February 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm -      #23

    Now, at first, I thought the Enterprise had this one with ease, but, as always, L-W is right.

  24. doommunchkin March 14, 2009 at 11:34 pm -      #24

    I love this site. It’s one of the only places on the internet where the facts matter more than what is shown on t.v., books or any other commercial outlet. I remember reading the rouge squadron books back in the day and I remember them taking out (victory class I think) star destroyers. If you look at the facts about all the ships involved in that fight you come to understand there is no way to do what they did. O.K. sure, rouge squadron is badass, but come on, people read that and think “oh, so taking out a SD is just that easy huh”. please. You dont name something that awesome a STAR DESTROYER for no reason. Real life doesnt have conveniently located exhaust ports. That crap only works in the movies and only then to make up for the nonexistent imaginations of the monkeys in hollywood. Honestly, I cant name one game, book, movie, t.v. show that has solid continuity and I atribute that to the need to make money over the need to make a good story. Basically, if you put to many hands in the cookie pot all you get is crumbs.

  25. WTFMACHINE March 16, 2009 at 11:54 am -      #25

    the SD is basically over kill ok, that’s all it is. it is used ot threaten the rebles. all the Feds have to do is to knock out a main power generator and ter it up as if the SD was battlestar galactica. the SD can hit sh!t unless it was closer than 2 meters, even then it can’t hit a X-wing.

    typewriter is the longest word you can write on a single row on a keyboard

  26. doommunchkin March 16, 2009 at 5:21 pm -      #26

    The only reason the empire lost is because lucas, in all his infinite “wisdom” couldnt come up with a way for the rebels to win if the empire wasnt a joke. Lets start with the T.I.E. fighter. Cool looking but useless. Light wieght but at a huge cost. No F.T.L. drive. No missles. The only real advantages it has is numbers and the fact that an empire ship can launch a bunch of them really fast. They are very maneuverable but again numbers is what makes them dangerous. Solar powered, because the empire cant afford fuel apparently. The X-wing has F.T.L. and missles and more armor and more guns. It also provides much more sight radius. Blasters. How bad can you mess that up? Pretty bad lucas. First, the blasters carried by troops are laser weapons yet arent capable of hitting the far wall in under a second, like a real laser could. Never mind the fact that real lasers take a second to burn through things. It wouldnt be a “shot” rather a line. The blasters shown are firing like they have bullets wrapped up in light. The blasters on ships and tanks are particle weapons. Makes sense, a particle heavier than light moving at near light speeds packs more kinetic energy than light, duh. The problem isnt what kind of guns they use, its the fact that no one can hit anything. At least not until the plot dictates. All this advanced technology around and crappy targeting sensors. Way to go george. And why the hell does no one freaking aim?! Oh right, no sensors. Having said all this I take star wars with a grain of salt. When I read a book or watch a movie and something gets all “lucased” up I fix it in my head. I believe that, if things in star wars werent “lucased” up the SSD would have no way of loosing. Though a Covenant ship would kick the crap out of both of them. Giant guided balls of plasma and the ability to F.T.L. jump right on top of the enemy, fire and jump out. Nice.

  27. WTFMACHINE March 17, 2009 at 11:17 am -      #27

    the enterprise could fire multiple rounds at a single coordinate on a target resulting in a punishing blow to the target

  28. L-W March 29, 2009 at 1:00 am -      #28

    “the enterprise could fire multiple rounds at a single coordinate on a target resulting in a punishing blow to the target”

    Except even with all of her mounted weaponry firing continuous salvos, the output of the entire Enterprise arsenal is insufficient to even graze, let alone drop the energy shielding of the SSD.

  29. Skrunks April 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm -      #29

    As we discussed in the SSD vs Retribution thread, the SSD’s shields can deflect petaton level firepower without serious damage. All of Starfleet could self destruct thier warp cores right beside the SSD and it would be unscratched.

  30. Shadow Archon April 18, 2009 at 3:30 pm -      #30

    SSD wins easily. Heck, it could take on the Federation.

  31. Bobby Funn April 22, 2009 at 11:29 pm -      #31

    “As we discussed in the SSD vs Retribution thread, the SSD’s shields can deflect petaton level firepower without serious damage.”

    Are you sure about that? Are you sure that the maximum power the SSD’s shields can deflect isn’t 12 parsecs? And I’m pretty sure that the maximum power output of an SSD’s weapons is only 12 parsecs. Plus, I think their maximum speed is only 12 parsecs.

    Let’s face it, the SW folks don’t have a great track record when it comes to making meaningful statements about units of measure. I doubt they can tell a megajoule from the Jewel of the Nile.

    If the SW Imperial technology is so advanced, why do their holograms look like a 1950’s TV broadcast compared to the holodeck on the Enterprise? Why do their robots look like tank vacuum cleaners compared to Data and the Doctor? Why don’t they have a transporter?

  32. L-W April 23, 2009 at 12:56 am -      #32

    “Let’s face it, the SW folks don’t have a great track record when it comes to making meaningful statements about units of measure. I doubt they can tell a megajoule from the Jewel of the Nile.”

    A commonly recognized error on behalf of a single writer does not impede everyone else apparently.

    “If the SW Imperial technology is so advanced, why do their holograms look like a 1950’s TV broadcast compared to the holodeck on the Enterprise?”

    Actually the Star Wars universe does posses hologram technology equal to (If not greater) than that of the Enterprise Holodeck. The Holograms viewed in most cases are actually instantaneous transmissions delivered at light speeds through Hyperspace. How do you expect them to look?

    Either way, just because our society has advanced in one direction does not mean that theirs would follow an equal technological course. If you look at the time line of Human evolution in the Star Wars on an equal scale of ours, by the time that we invented colour television, they were already exploring nearby systems.

    By the time we reached high speed broadband, they were already colonizing the galaxy and spreading Humanity beyond the Core worlds. Their desire to explore and proliferate throughout the universe overwhelmed the need to sit down and watch television.

    “Why do their robots look like tank vacuum cleaners compared to Data and the Doctor?”

    They used to, there was a war, a lot of people were killed, now they are banned. In fact a heavy penalty usually follows any attempt to build a machine with a likeness to a living Organism (Since they make the perfect assassin droids), so designing an exact replica is usually limited to the outer rims and criminal elements.

    “Why don’t they have a transporter?”

    They used to have teleportation, then they realized that like the Enterprise Transporter, the original subject is killed every time they teleport. You can imagine how quickly they banned it.

    So, do you have a point to prove?

  33. Locutus April 23, 2009 at 2:06 am -      #33

    “then they realized that like the Enterprise Transporter, the original subject is killed every time they teleport.”

    I believe that it was stated in a Enterprise episode that this did not happen. The person transported was the same person and not a copy.

  34. Bobby Funn April 23, 2009 at 7:50 am -      #34

    “A commonly recognized error”

    Ah yes, the ex post facto explanation. Those are always so convincing. It’s much more credible to believe this after the fact explanation that Han Solo was talking about total distance traveled than it is to believe that George Lucas just didn’t know what a parsec really is, but thought it was a cool-sounding word.

    “Actually the Star Wars universe does posses hologram technology equal to (If not greater) than that of the Enterprise Holodeck.”

    They just never bother to ever use this technology anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. But it’s there. Really.

    “The Holograms viewed in most cases are actually instantaneous transmissions delivered at light speeds through Hyperspace. How do you expect them to look?”

    Better than a 1950s TV broadcast, and maybe even as good as the holographic images of subspace sensor data projected in Stellar Cartography aboard the Enterprise-D.

    “They used to [have androids as lifelike as CDR Data and the Doctor], there was a war, a lot of people were killed, now they are banned. In fact a heavy penalty usually follows any attempt to build a machine with a likeness to a living Organism”

    Well that’s convenient.

    “They used to have teleportation, then they realized that like the Enterprise Transporter, the original subject is killed every time they teleport.”

    Wow, even more stuff that the *used* to have in the SW universe, but that they conveniently got rid of.

    “So, do you have a point to prove?”

    Yes, my point was that the technology in the SW universe is so primitive compared to Federation technology, they might as well be flying steam-powered ships. The Enterprise could dispatch an ISD as easily as if it were an 18th century sailing frigate.

    But the Ewoks are cute.

  35. L-W April 23, 2009 at 9:14 am -      #35

    “They just never bother to ever use this technology anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. But it’s there. Really.”

    Expanded universe, if it happens there then its canon.

    “Well that’s convenient.”

    Not really. A *lot* of Humans died as a result of the war (Essentially the great Golden Man purge of 40K is a reference to this) that spread the Galaxy thin, all thanks to a handful of Droids that were essentially perfect replicas of Humans.

    After this Androids and Cyborgs all but became illegal, and assassin Droids were so frowned upon that only the most illegal of Pirate junkers in the Galaxy could trade them in Hutt space. IG-88’s ‘life’ story is pretty much paramount to this major Galactic event.

    “Wow, even more stuff that the *used* to have in the SW universe, but that they conveniently got rid of.”

    Yes, it’s called back story. It helps to do some research before you come across as a complete ignoramus.

    “Yes, my point was that the technology in the SW universe is so primitive compared to Federation technology, they might as well be flying steam-powered ships. The Enterprise could dispatch an ISD as easily as if it were an 18th century sailing frigate.”

    Too bad you haven’t actually put forth anything valid towards the discussion sans:

    “It looks inferior, therefore it MUST be inferior”

    Way to go, too bad we’ve already proven that weapons, shielding and propulsion technology all fall in favour of the “Inferior” Star Destroyer. Boy, you would do wonders in the Warhammer 40K discussions.

  36. L-W April 23, 2009 at 9:58 am -      #36

    I apologize for the double post, but I had dig through my garage to find my old Star Wars and Star Trek technical manuals (Yes I collect the books, and no, I’m not ashamed) just to make a direct and objective comparison with no arguments.

    Here are the stats for a Star Destroyer, which is approximately a tenth of the size of a super star Destroyer:

    Light guns: 300 million GW (6 megatons per shot, 24 guns, assume 1 shot every 2 seconds for time-averaged power output rather than peak output).
    Heavy guns: 2.4 million megatons (200 gigatons per shot from each turret, 12 turrets).
    Sublight acceleration: 3500G.
    Operational range: 250,000 light-years (before refueling).
    Shield heat dissipation: 70 trillion GW peak.
    Reactor power: 200 trillion GW max.
    Max hyperspace speed: 10,000-10,000,000c (The books is never clear on this matter).

    Source: Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections

    – – –

    Now for the Star Trek Enterprise-D class federation vessel:

    Main phasers: 3.6 GW (5.1 MW per emitter, 200 emitters in the main phaser array, 2 full-sized saucer arrays and 3 smaller roughly half-size arrays on the stardrive section). Roughly 3 kilotons.
    Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical (based on 1.5 kg antimatter payload).
    Sublight acceleration: 1000G.
    Operational range: 2750 light-years.

    Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak (473 GW per generator x 7 generators)
    Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6. From the chart, their fuel supply for 7 years of warp 6 cruising would be roughly 2E23 J (enough to run a Star Destroyer reactor at full power for just one second).

    Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6), sustainable 12 hours for a single sprint of roughly 3 light-years. This appears to have increased to roughly 3000c for newer ships such as the Intrepid-class.

    – – –

    So Bobby Funn, what do you think of the “inferior” technology of the Star Wars universe now? If the SSD is the equivalent of an 18th Century Frigate, what does that make the Enterprise? A raft?

    Oh, I amuse myself.

  37. AlphaCommando April 23, 2009 at 4:40 pm -      #37

    Nah, a raft would denote a possibility of ramming with it packed with explosives, which would do some damage to the 18th century ship.

    …Now a 10-year old wearing water wings…that’s more accurate.

  38. Bobby Funn April 23, 2009 at 7:42 pm -      #38

    Well, I surely don’t want to come across as “a complete ignoramus”. So let me take a look at what you have to say here.

    In the meantime, here’s an interesting article on an ethical comparison of Star Wars and Star Trek:

    www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/

  39. Bobby Funn April 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm -      #39

    So let’s start with your statement regarding canon. You said:

    “[Star Wars] Expanded universe, if it happens there then its canon.”

    Well, that may be what *you* say, but it’s not what George Lucas or Lucasfilms representatives say. Here’s what the Star Wars website has to say:

    “When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves — and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas’ vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences.”

    Here’s what Lucas himself had to say about the canonical status of the EU, in a 2001 magazine interview:

    “There are two worlds here,” explained Lucas. “There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe.”

    Gee, that really puts your assertions about alleged imperial technology in a totally different light. All those technologies that you claimed for the Empire as either existing in the time of the movies, or having been previously abandoned – – transporters, advanced androids, high-resolution holograms – – all those assertions just get blown away. They’re not in the films, they’re not in the novelizations of the films, and so they’re not canon. So to sum up the success of your argument so far, in one word:

    FAIL!

    Where does that leave the Star Wars technical manual that you’re so pleased with? It’s not a movie, or a novelization of a movie, therefore it’s not canon. You may as well toss it in the recycling bin, for all its worth canonically. So sorry!

    This raises the question, what to make of that Star Trek manual that you also dug out of your garage. According to the Star Trek web site:

    “As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn’t a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.”

    So it’s clear that the TV series and (for the most part) the movies are canon, and everything else (including the Technical Manual) is not canon. Sorry you went to the trouble of digging them out.

    Well, I have to say that I’m greatly relieved to learn that I’m not “a complete ignoramus”. Imagine how stupid I would feel if I had been spouting off about stuff that turned out to be non-canonical! I’m glad I’m not in that situation.

    So, would you like to try again?

  40. L-W April 23, 2009 at 10:11 pm -      #40

    I have no issue with an Admiral going Base Delta Zero on the Federation.

    That will show those space commies.

  41. L-W April 23, 2009 at 10:59 pm -      #41

    HAHAHA!

    Oh dear, trying to dig up a myriad of quotes to prove a single point wrong when I can easily rebut with just a few words.

    1) Holocron and a Holo-Shroud generator. Two canon articles that quite easily disprove any further arguments in regards to Star Wars holographic technology.

    Why does every Joe, Dick and Harry try and attack the EU? Even though its been successfully defended (Frequently) on so many other boards?

    2) As for the EU, individual have asked the same questions of Leland Chee (maintainer of the Star Wars Holocron, which is an internal continuity database which is kept secret from the public and which informs Star Wars authors what they must stay consistent to), and he responded with this:

    “The database does indeed have a canon field. Anything in the films and from George Lucas (including unpublished internal notes that we might receive from him or from the film production department) is considered “G” canon. Next we have what we call continuity “C” canon which is pretty much everything else. There is secondary “S” continuity canon which we use for some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right. But, if it is referenced in something else it becomes “C”. Similarly, any “C” canon item that makes it into the films can become “G” canon. Lastly, there is non-continuity “N” which we rarely use except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut.

    I will not go into specifics as to what is considered “S” canon or what items that are seemingly “C” canon are actually “G” canon.”

    When challenged by certain agenda-driven individuals who claimed that they studied George Lucas’ public interviews and therefore knew his intentions better than people who worked with him professionally, Mr. Chee further clarified with this:

    “All contradictions are dealt with case-by-case … Does LucasFilm Ltd. itself actually have a Canon Policy? No.

    The quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George’s vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not.”

    So in summary, the policy of Lucasfilm is that the books count, although not as highly as the movies. The policy of Paramount is that the books don’t count at all, and amazingly enough, some of the TV shows and movies don’t count either. The two companies have taken different approaches; Lucasfilm has gone the route of inclusiveness in order to weld things into a single continuity, while Paramount went the route of minimizing that which is canon so that authors would have more freedom to work independently of one another.

    Given the definition of what “canon” is, the only valid approach is to ask Paramount and Lucasfilm. Someone did precisely that, and we have their answers. Star Trek’s continuity policy is very narrow, encompassing only the TV shows and movies (and not even all of those), while Lucasfilm’s continuity policy is fairly broad, encompassing all of the movies and most of the other licensed material as well.

    Alternatively, you could ignore the definition of “canon” (this is sci-fi after all, not a religion), and create a continuity policy based on the creator’s direct participation, which would guarantee consistency with his vision. However, that narrows the field considerably. In Star Trek, you would have to drop everything made since 1991, and you would have to take TNG over TOS wherever there is a conflict. In Star Wars, you would have to drop everything that doesn’t have George Lucas’ name on it as producer or author.

    And of course, if you find both of these two options unpalatable, you are always free to make up your own policy or do as the author of canonwars.com did, and turn the quest for “canon” into a huge personal obsession, even going so far as to argue with Paramount and Lucasfilm employees that they don’t know their own companys’ internal policies as well as you do because you have armloads of quotes you’ve “analyzed”. Personally, I think that if pressed, the average person would probably concede that the most reasonable option is to simply accept whatever Lucasfilm and Paramount say on this matter. “Canon”, after all, literally means that which is approved by the ruling body. That’s not to say that you can’t argue with Lucasfilm or Paramount about anything; the best-known case of a fan dispute with Lucasfilm was a clearly erroneous claim on certain printed sources that the Super Star Destroyer “Executor” in ROTJ was only 5 times bigger than a regular Star Destroyer even though anyone could watch the movies and see that it’s obviously much bigger than that. But that’s a matter of pointing out a measurement error, not disputing a company’s own internal policies.

    There is also the issue that Lucasfilm Ltd (Lucas is the company’s current chairman) created a scaling system to determine the validity of what is considered canon, with G and C representing true Star Wars, with S and N illustrating issues of older, less accurate, or less coherent literary works, which would not ordinarily fit in the main continuity of G and C canon (N canon is considered untrue for all extents and purposes).

    As far as the Star Wars universe is concerned, the EU is a canon continuation of the six Lucas films, even Lucas himself admitting that many of the choices made throughout the sequels (Empire Strike Back most notably) were a result of EU material published following the successful release of “A New Hope”. In fact most of the creative decisions made throughout the prequel trilogy were a result of EU material.

    To rectify this issue of continuity Lucasfilm Ltd appropriated Star Wars fiction into four tiers of fallibility (C,C,S,N) according to the Holocron continuity database. The first and second tier (G,C) are considered wholly cannon by Lucas and Lucasfilm Ltd, whilst the third and fourth tier (S,N) canon refers to older, less accurate, or less coherent literary works, which would not ordinarily fit in the main continuity of G and C canon.

    Referred to as C (continuity) canon, the EU is the next most authoritative level of canon. All material published under the Star Wars label that doesn’t fall into either G (George Lucas), S (Secondary), or N (Non) canon is C canon and is considered authoritative as long as it isn’t contradicted by G canon.

    – – –

    Next you’ll be telling me that IG-88 doesn’t exist!

    – – –

    There are certain quotes that would generally stomp your point of view to the ground;

    “The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the ‘real’ Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them.”

    -by Chris Cerasi

    “Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas’ original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we’ve read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history — with many off-shoots, variations and tangents — like any other well-developed mythology.”

    -by Allan Kausch

    “GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he’s certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George’s vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films.”

    -by Leeland Chee

    And the man himself…

    “After Star Wars was released, it became apparent that my story – however many films it took to tell – was only one of thousands that could be told about the characters who inhabit its galaxy. But these were not stories I was destined to tell. Instead they would spring from the imagination of other writers, inspired by the glimpse of a galaxy that Star Wars provided. Today it is an amazing, if unexpected, legacy of Star Wars that so many gifted writers are contributing new stories to the Saga.”

    -by George Lucas

    There you have it. It is surprisingly easy to grab quotes from other individuals and put them out of context. Saying Lucas opposes EU is not as absolute as you make it out to be. You are trying to put things out of context just to gain a phantom of an upper hand when in fact Lucas himself has been somewhat contradictory regarding this issue.

    Yes he assures that there are many things in the EU that he would have done differently, but he does not condone the possibility. In Lucas’ mind, things stop at the end of RotJ, and that’s that. Understandable, but it has no bearing in this fight.

    Take that garbage somewhere else. If you can’t argue in favor or against of any other point brought by supporters from each side, or provide new data relevant to those arguments, you don’t belong in here.

  42. AlphaCommando April 23, 2009 at 10:59 pm -      #42

    Lucas seems to contradict himself constantly; he makes statements like that and yet his company (which acts in him image) has released a scale marking most novels as canon.

    Take your pick, most every single actual fan of Star Wars will go with the novels as they add actual scientific probability and additional depth. You just are blinded by your inherent dislike of Star Wars (or something) and thus want to believe the side that gets you the farthest. We have never done so, case in point; the Boba Fett vs. Samus argument was going A OK for Boba until information was brought to our attention that Samus’ weapons where several times more powerful than expected, we dropped Boba like a hot rock because canonical information overrides personal opinion on canon (despite it being obvious that the weapon’s description was done by someone with no knowledge of what he speaks). And if Lucas and His company are in conflict, which side should we take? One with little knowledge of science who makes a movie for dramatic effect (that ethics bull was so silly I crapped myself, good job looking too deep), or groups of people who in this modern era have access to better knowledge of what they are writing about and who have also been approved by Lucas (in essence)?

    Personally virtually nothing can be accomplished in any of these arguments if we only allow for base sources.

    Forgive any grammatical or spelling mistakes…its late and I’m tired.

  43. L-W April 23, 2009 at 11:14 pm -      #43

    For those of you interested in learning more about Republic and Imperial era Cybernetics, I can direct you to these reliable canon sources:

    “The Official Star Wars Fact File” –
    Details the chronology of cyborgs in SW universe, including the lesser known Synthdroid (Combines synthetic flesh with a droid carapace), Human replica droids and the Synthskin Assassins; including the prejudice associated with Human replication in the Galaxy.

    “Cyborgs with brain implants such as the BioTech Borg Construct Aj^6 have been known to suffer from psychosis as a result of their enhancement, and consequently face fear and prejudice from many beings.

    Such cyborgs were not considered citizens under Imperial law, which required surgery to be sponsored by a corporation or government. The cyborg was then indentured to their sponsor. However, this did not seem to affect the cyborg Darth Vader’s standing in the Empire. Even the New Republic required them to undergo regular neural scans.

    Cyborgs with large-scale enhancements (over half of their body) were faced with outright fear and derision, often forcing them into hiding. On some back-water worlds anti-cyborg sentiment was so strong that attempts at burying deceased “borgs” were often met with outbreaks of violence.

    Many beings, especially spacers, had a prejudice against droids which they extended to cyborgs; they referred to cyborgs as “borgs.” ”

    I also recommend:

    “The Essential Guide to Droids”
    “The New Essential Chronology”
    “The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology”

  44. kniget April 23, 2009 at 11:16 pm -      #44

    “And I’m pretty sure that the maximum power output of an SSD’s weapons is only 12 parsecs”

    parsecs are a measure of distance, not power….

  45. Locutus April 23, 2009 at 11:32 pm -      #45

    I agree with Bobby about the EU.

    “As many fans know, when it comes to Star Wars knowledge, there are degrees of “canon.” The only true canon are the films themselves.” – Steve Sansweet, LFL/Fan Relations, April 2000 “Are we going to get more details about Boba Fett’s past?”, StarWars.com

    Qutoes from Lucas on the EU:

    TVGuide: “Yet novelists have written “Star Wars” sequels using the same characters and extending their stories.”

    George Lucas: “Oh, sure. They’re done outside my little universe. “Star Wars” has had a lot of different lives that have been worked on by a lot of different people. It works without me.” -TV Guide Interview with George Lucas, week of 11/19/01

    “But there’s three worlds: There’s my world that I made up, there’s the licensing world that’s the books, the comics, all that kind of stuff, the games, which is their world, and then there’s the fans’ world, which is also very rich in imagination, but they don’t always mesh.” – George Lucas, Flannelled One, Mar. 2008, “George Lucas Talks Star Wars: The Clone Wars”, StarWars.com

    “I don’t even read the offshoot books that come out based on Star Wars.” – George Lucas, Flannelled One, July 1999 – Film Night interview

    “When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions.” – George Lucas, Flannelled One, Aug. 2005 – “New Hopes” interview in Starlog #337

    It’s obvious that Lucas sees the EU as not part of his Star Wars. The movies are the only true canon. The EU has its own canon so that it can try and keep as true and consistent to the real Star Wars universe as much as possible. But in the end it is still a “parallel” universe and therefore not true SW canon.

  46. kniget April 23, 2009 at 11:35 pm -      #46

    and to Bobby Fun, im assuming that those manuals are based off the TV show, and if not than you have no concrete numbers for your argument, so in order to give this post any legitimacy i think that the manuals and the ‘cross-sections’ book present the best proof on what would happen if these two ships ever met in combat. and based on the numbers given, im assuming he didnt doctor anything since i dont have the books, the Enterprise would get annihilated before it got 10 shots off.

  47. AlphaCommando April 24, 2009 at 1:09 am -      #47

    Or L-W could make my post seem utterly insignificant under a mountain of quotes and analysis…

    Hmm, ah well…

  48. L-W April 24, 2009 at 1:16 am -      #48

    “It’s obvious that Lucas sees the EU as not part of his Star Wars. The movies are the only true canon. The EU has its own canon so that it can try and keep as true and consistent to the real Star Wars universe as much as possible. But in the end it is still a “parallel” universe and therefore not true SW canon.”

    I can see that you ignored every other post in the Boba fett Vs. Samus board that proved that statement wrong.

    Some people prefer to pretend the books don’t exist on either side, and talk about only the movies (or movies and TV shows, in the case of Trek). This approach has strengths and weaknesses; the visual look of each series is often more consistent than published material (particularly in the case of Star Trek, where the TM contradicts itself repeatedly and has several astonishingly bad science errors. Moreover, the ST books’ status has been officially stated as mere “speculation” (see John Ordover), although SW books are supposedly “quasi-canon” (see the Star Wars Encyclopedia foreword). In any case, a lot of people prefer to stick to the shows and movies regardless of what the “official” stance is.

    Having said that, the comparison is little better. In Star Trek, most of the figures from the show are reasonably compatible with those from the TM’s (not surprising, since the people who worked on the TM also worked on the show), and in Star Wars, most of the figures from the SW2ICS are based on observations of the original trilogy (from Dr. Curtis Saxton). There are limits to how inaccurate one can reasonable expect the TM and SW2ICS to be, and sure enough, analysis of direct observations from the shows and movies tends to generate similar results, albeit with more ambiguities.

    Note that it is difficult to gauge the effect of weapons in any meaningful sense unless they are applied to inert objects (if a shell hits an aircraft wing-tank and causes the plane to burst into flames, you cannot attribute all the energy of the resulting conflagration to the shell). This means we need to look for weapons striking inert objects such as rocks, planets, asteroids, etc. I’m afraid this is a rather complicated subject, however, the following table should help clarify matters:

    Here are the visual stats of the Star Wars Imperial Star Destroyer.

    Planetary destruction: Death Star blast (roughly 20 billion trillion megatons, ie- the number “two” followed by 22 zeroes). Planet blown apart at 5% of the speed of light. Even if we assume the shot was time-lapse photography (not that there’s any reason to), the absolute lower limit is roughly 50 quadrillion megatons. Note that even if you scale this monster down by a factor of 10 million (to the volume of a Star Destroyer), you’d still have 5 billion megatons. More than a match for poor Enterprise.

    It is even stated that an Imperial Star Destroyer can turn the crust of a Planet to an even batch of crater less molten slag within an hour. This operation is known as a Base Delta Zero (Designed to terminate ALL life), and is so potent that even forty years after the slagging of a Planet, it is easier to terraform a barren rock to a higher standard than the original Planet.

    Asteroid destruction: Even the smaller to medium Turbolasers can destroy a large 5-10km Asteroid with a single blast.

    Combat range: in ROTJ, combat initially occurs at ranges of a few thousands kilometers, eventually closing to a few hundred kilometers (“point blank” according to Lando) until Rebel ships are within a few dozen kilometres of the Executor. In some cases (such as the opening battle of Hoth) engagements often begin at distances measured in light minutes (Or millions of kilometers).

    Speed: travel from galactic core systems to outer rim systems (“halfway across the galaxy” as Amidala put it) is shown repeatedly in ANH, TPM, and AOTC. It is invariably same-day traffic, typically a few hours.

    – – –

    Now for the visual stats presented by the Star Trek TV series:

    Planetary destruction: 30-ship bombardment in “The Die is Cast” (surface-level explosions create fireballs in the megaton range at most, judging from fireball duration). No sub-orbital ejecta launched from planet’s surface at all. Trekkies attempt to ignore weak-kneed appearance of attack and focus on semantics in order to exaggerate the figure. But the fact is that even after a sustained bombardment of several hours, the fleet had still failed to scorch only a portion of the crust, not slag or melt it in any significant manner.

    Asteroid destruction: according to Riker, it would take the entire photon torpedo payload to destroy a single 5km wide hollow asteroid in “Pegasus”. In other words, it would take the entire payload of the Enterprise-D (a capital warship with a crew of a thousand) to equal just one of Jango Fett’s seismic charges (a bounty hunter’s weapon) or a single bolt from an Imperial Star Destroyer.

    Combat range: fleet actions in DS9 uniformly feature engagements at ranges of 5 km or less, just as they do in TNG’s Klingon wars or Borg engagements. In “The Die is Cast”, Sisko actually orders the Defiant to approach to 500 metres (while taking fire) before shooting at a Jem’Hadar attack ship, presumably due to some disadvantage incurred at longer range. The only long-ranged incidents involve stationary or near-stationary targets at several dozen kilometers.

    Speed: Voyager took 7 years to crawl across part of one quadrant of the galaxy, even with repeated assists from alien races, stolen technology, and even the occasional shove from a godlike being. Not hours … years.

    – – –

    What difference does it make? Since the film vs film and book vs book approaches both yield the same result, you can mix and match film vs book policies in any order you want (tech books for both, tech books for neither, tech books for ST but not for SW, tech books for SW but not for ST), and the result is the same every time.

    Sorry Trekkies, but even if you refute the Expanded Universe as canon (Which almost everyone here will disagree with), you still don’t have a leg to stand on.

    – – –

    As Patrick Swayze said in the 80’s extravaganza Red Dawn:

    “You lose.”

  49. AlphaCommando April 24, 2009 at 1:45 am -      #49

    Or better yet.

    “WOLVERINES!”

    Seriously, awesome overly pro-American movie…

  50. L-W April 24, 2009 at 2:10 am -      #50

    Perhaps we can drink some deer blood after this debate is over? Or perhaps partake in some radiator urination.

  51. Skrunks April 24, 2009 at 3:55 am -      #51

    “http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html”

    Incase you don’t want to take L-Ws word for it. Scientifically speaking, an X-Wing fighter has enough juice to blow the Enterprise D to kingdom come. A single blaster bolt from an X-Wing is theorized to deliver 600 GW at least. I can’t remember the exact episode, but somewhere in TNG the Enterprise encountered a ship that hit them with a multi-gigawatt blast of particle energy, and it dropped the shields in a few hits.

  52. L-W April 24, 2009 at 3:55 am -      #52

    “We have seen much higher yields in many episodes.

    One Example:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_jbRJb5NBY&feature=related

    Go to time 1:40″

    I can’t believe I overlooked this comment when it first appeared some time ago (Two months to be exact), but I thought I would comment on it anyway.

    The blast seen in the clip is nowhere near the yield of 64 megatons, judging from atmospheric dispersal and the longevity off the pulse in the atmosphere (Since moments ago Picard was standing on the surface unaided) without any visible strata or super heated ejecta present, I would say that they yield is between a high kiloton to low megaton range depending on the clarity of the upper atmosphere of Vagra II.

    Without knowing the composition of the stratosphere (Although there is an indication towards a high ferrous content), I would have to declare that the pulse is indeed indicative of a Kiloton yield weapon.

  53. L-W April 24, 2009 at 10:28 am -      #53

    “Incase you don’t want to take L-Ws word for it. Scientifically speaking, an X-Wing fighter has enough juice to blow the Enterprise D to kingdom come.”

    Very true Skrunks, you only have to even glance at the technical specs of each respective faction to determine that the Empire is superior in almost every technological pursuit; from industrial capacity and territorial holdings, propulsion technology, beam weapons, energy shielding, sensors, communications, power generation and spacial research.

    The Federation is just a drop in the bucket to the Imperials, with their puny territorial holding of one hundred and fifty worlds being vastly dwarfed by the twelve million in possession of the Empire.

  54. G2 April 25, 2009 at 4:18 am -      #54

    I would debate this with a long time consuming post..but I will save time by just directing you to someone who had already done the work.

    www.st-v-sw.net/STSWICS.html

    www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html

    www.st-v-sw.net/BB/BBdeathstar2.html

  55. AlphaCommando April 25, 2009 at 9:48 am -      #55

    Hmm, independent website…

    Ignoring…

  56. G2 April 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm -      #56

    Heh.
    Yea thats right. Just ignore the evidence.

  57. Thepocalypse April 25, 2009 at 3:24 pm -      #57

    “Heh.
    Yea thats right. Just ignore the evidence.”
    It isn’t admissable evidence if it’s on an unofficial site that isn’t generally trusted by web surfers. Were it on Comicvine, Wikipedia, etc. it would be fine. Some sites are alright as long as they contain proof of every fact, like video or comic scans.

  58. L-W April 25, 2009 at 10:17 pm -      #58

    The beauty is an individual could direct you to a number of other websites that say quite the opposite.

    Too bad the technical manuals still offer the empirical data that say otherwise.

  59. AlphaCommando April 25, 2009 at 10:31 pm -      #59

    The facts that’s it not an official site is what I was pointing out.

    And official statement is the decider in canon.

  60. L-W April 26, 2009 at 1:29 am -      #60

    The issue with ST-Vs-SW is that the author refuses to acknowledge that the EU is canon material that is integral to the star Wars universe, a matter that many on either side of the debate have refuted frequently (I especially cannot get over the authors use of WTF).

    Deride the technical manuals as being childish for as long as you may choose, but it still doesn’t rob the SW:CCS of its C and G-canon status respectively. Considering the EU has considerable support here from the majority, I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree.

    As I said, what difference does it make? Since the film vs film and book vs book approaches both yield the same result, you can mix and match film vs book policies in any order you want (tech books for both, tech books for neither, tech books for ST but not for SW, tech books for SW but not for ST), and the result is the same every time.

    Sorry Trekkies, but even if you refute the Expanded Universe as canon (Which almost everyone here will disagree with), you still don’t have a leg to stand on.

  61. Skrunks April 27, 2009 at 6:26 am -      #61

    For some reason this thing won’t post my post. :/

  62. L-W April 27, 2009 at 8:30 am -      #62

    Did you use more than two hyperlinks? Apparently BankGambling frowns upon this as some form of spam, thus promptly blocks your post.

    Yeah, that’s part of the filtering – but I check all the spam posts on a daily basis.

    Admin

  63. Skrunks April 27, 2009 at 4:40 pm -      #63

    I quoted out all the links, and it still won’t work. :/

  64. Albert Wikowonkavitz May 29, 2009 at 7:54 am -      #64

    I think there’s one thing that kind of makes people think mostly about just the movies and/or TV shows (I’ll even admit that I’m one of them)…most people just generally aren’t interested enough to get into the EU and similar things. Not saying they aren’t canon, though…

  65. Syrtees June 6, 2009 at 9:42 pm -      #65

    What bothers me is that they are using the enterprise “D” and not “E”

    I wonder how well the Enterprise would fare if it started out with the picard maneuver?

  66. Syrtees June 6, 2009 at 9:48 pm -      #66

    . . . . . . . . . . .
    in any of anything i say. =(

  67. L-W June 8, 2009 at 8:36 am -      #67

    Um…Sure, I’ll get right on that.

  68. Megaraptor18 July 2, 2009 at 12:33 am -      #68

    Super Star Destroyer Vs Enterprise

    Wow what a match a ship made for war against a ship made for exporing.

    I’m going with the ship that was made for war the Super Star Destroyer

  69. L-W July 13, 2009 at 4:34 am -      #69

    In lieu of the facts, this isn’t even anywhere near a fair fight; this is more like an M1 Abrams tank fighting a 15th century English Longbow. Sure the Archer has the option of outmaneuvering the tank on foot, but an arrow to the hull is going to do nothing but ricochet or shatter; and when was the last time you heard of a man surviving a 120mm smooth bore shell being fired at his sternum? Or a .50 cal round blowing his head clean off?

    Just look at this size chart for a comparison:

    www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png

    The Super Star Destroyer is at the top left, to the center left is the puny Galaxy-class Federation vessel (Enterprise-D); if you look closely you’ll spot it eventually. Even if the Enterprise-D rammed her opponent at full speed she will only cause minor damage to the Star Destroyer’s shielding, which would recover to full strength in minutes.

    – – –

    Admin? Can we wrap this up now? I give my vote to the Super Star Destroyer for the overwhelming curbstomp.

  70. Obi-Ron August 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm -      #70

    According to starwars.com, there are only 5000 turbolasers and ion cannons on an SSD.

    According to Star Trek lore from various seasons…”Lasers” will not even scratch the shields and phasers are the far superior descendant of lasers.

    Mind you, I am a SW fan, but the phasers would seem to slice and dice the SSD and remain untouched.

    Much as I like the SSD, the science is behind the Enterprise.

    the equivalent would be a gun fight in which you have spit-balls and I have a Desert Eagle .50 cal.

  71. L-W August 27, 2009 at 6:28 am -      #71

    Obi-Ron, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard.

    1) It’s an age-old argument that doesn’t hold water. Lasers do mess with shields in later episodes; for instance, Borg cutting lasers go through Galaxy-class shields like a knife through butter. The Straleb’s lasers weren’t ineffective simply because they were lasers, they were ineffective because they were lasers operating at a power level much below the one even the Enterprise’s nav deflectors were built to handle. That’s what made Picard chuckle; the tech disparity between the two ships was ridiculous.

    2) It is scientifically impossible for any kind of shield to block infinite amounts of laser energy, because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits 100% efficiency devices and light carries momentum equal to U/c, so there are two mechanisms through which increased power levels would eventually overwhelm any blocking system. Therefore, Riker was either an idiot or he was taking the enemy ship’s small size into account when he made his statement. Case closed.

    3) this idea stems from an extremely simplistic and close-minded interpretation of language. A language grows over time, rather than being invented or created. As a result, it will invariably incorporate countless archaic meanings, holdovers, cultural references, etc. One could probably expend huge amounts of space describing the various archaic terms in the English language, but a few examples are easily applied to the turbolaser issue.

    Obviously, turbolasers cannot possibly be lasers. They exhibit none of the characteristics of lasers. They travel much slower than the speed of light, they interact with one another (as demonstrated by the combining Death Star beam), and they are visible in vacuum. To put a twist on an old saying, if something doesn’t walk like a duck, doesn’t look like a duck, and doesn’t quack like a duck, it probably ain’t a duck.

    4) Finally, do the mathematics. In one episode the Enterprise is cut to ribbons by a mere laser measured at 2.1 megajoules. The medium turbolaser turrets of the SSD are rated at least 200 gigatons, capable of vaporizing the Enterprise in one strike.

    In other words, the Enterprise is the one firing spit balls, whereas the SSD is returning thousands of salvos of nuclear artillery.

  72. Ken September 5, 2009 at 10:37 pm -      #72

    Um, the original Enterprise under Kirk would always win because A. It is THE ENTERPRISE, an B. Couldn’t they just shoot the SSd’s bridge windows and send it crashing into a certain superweapon/space station that we all know and love? (hehe)

  73. Ken September 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm -      #73

    Why not use the enterprise from the new star trek movie for comparison? its about fifty times as powerful AND it is about two hundred meters longer than enterprise D, or E. (also, said movie completely erased The Next Generation

  74. L-W September 26, 2009 at 2:02 am -      #74

    1) “Couldn’t they just shoot the SSd’s bridge windows and send it crashing into a certain superweapon/space station that we all know and love? (hehe)”

    You mean the window that was protected by a shield that withstood a half an hour long bombardment from a fleet of Cruisers before faltering? The level of firepower involved in such an event is far beyond anything available to the Federation I’m afraid.

    2) “Why not use the enterprise from the new star trek movie for comparison? its about fifty times as powerful AND it is about two hundred meters longer than enterprise D, or E. (also, said movie completely erased The Next Generation”

    Evidence for this?

  75. shakuvendell October 3, 2009 at 5:36 pm -      #75

    I spent hours reviewing the technical specifications of both ships, doing countless calculations based on weapons, shield, engine, armor, crew, system, and support equipment specifications and statistics, and came to the conclusion that it would take 1,255-1,460 Galaxy class vessels to take on a single Executor class, and it would have to be with torpedoes, because the phasers would have ABSOLUTELY no effect, because of the shield’s IMMENSE even with all power directed from the other systems. Oh, and the heaviest point-defense turbo-lasers on board the Executor could destroy a Galaxy class vessel in 1-2 shots!!!

  76. L-W October 4, 2009 at 12:29 am -      #76

    Assuming 100% total efficiency on behalf of the standard Photon Torpedo yield (64 megatons), it would take over 15,000,000,000 torpedoes against a single shield section (of which there are six overall) to expose the hull.

    Now also assuming that they were aiming for a decapitating strike against the bridge tower (which wouldn’t destroy the ship or even hamper the abilities of her crew since secondary controls would kick in within seconds) for the sake of blind vengeance alone, the Federation would have to bring to tow 60,000,000 Galaxy-class vessels to the fight (based on the standard 250 photon torpedo payload) to even begin competing against the shields of an Executor.

    Let’s not forget that the Executor will be returning fire with over tens of thousands of weapons emplacements, from ship smashing proton torpedoes, shield wasting point defence lasers to turbolasers that would make you question whether or not there was a Federation vessel there in the first place (6 megatons to 1 teraton of firepower from various towers). The Executor could lay down a withering blanket of fire capable of dusting even the combined might of the Federation in less than a minute.

  77. Dracosphinx October 4, 2009 at 1:22 am -      #77

    so the star destroyers are made to intimidate and function. Right?

  78. Belisaurius October 4, 2009 at 1:34 am -      #78

    It’s not a question of if the enterprise can win. Its a question of how long it can last.

    In turbolaser range, 2.5s and most of that was just aiming the turrets.

  79. L-W October 4, 2009 at 2:03 am -      #79

    “I maintain that the effectiveness of the Star Destroyer stems from not only its massive firepower, but from its size. When citizens look at a Star Destroyer and then compare it to the craft which might be mustered to attack it, they have a tendency to dismiss such a notion as suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically.”

    ―Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin

    Whilst Star Destroyers have a useful psychological function against an enemies morale, their main goal was to provide an overwhelming utilitarian function in the field by bringing up a shit load of firepower that can only be matched by a fleet of lesser vessels. In fact the name of the vessel originated from it’s ability to depopulate entire star systems within a matter of hours.

    Just as an example of the kind of disparity presented by the Empire against the Federation, just look at the Acclamator Troop Transport ship (I know, I know, I reference it a lot). This vessel is a thousand times smaller than the Executor and her entire generator output would be insufficient as to power one of the six shield sections of the Super Star Destroyer even at maximum efficiency, yet her shields could sustain over 900,000,000 Photon Torpedoes, putting her in the league of over 3,600,000 Galaxy-class Federation vessels.

    Whilst this may seem ridiculously overpowered, let us not forget that the troop transports heaviest turbolaser cannons (of which there are twelve) are capable of generating over 3,000 torpedoes (the entire payload of a dozen Galaxy-class vessels combined) worth of energy per shot, more than enough to leave a shimmering trail of cooling plasma and vaporized metals where a proud Federation starship once stood.

    As I said at the start, the Federation is way out of her league here.

  80. Ken October 7, 2009 at 7:40 pm -      #80

    What about the awesome black hole wapon used in the new movie?

  81. Prime Chaos October 7, 2009 at 8:09 pm -      #81

    The movies not canon, its an alternate timeline.

  82. L-W October 10, 2009 at 12:08 am -      #82

    That was a black hole? Doesn’t look or behave like any black hole I’ve ever studied.

  83. PANZERIMPERATOR October 17, 2009 at 2:34 pm -      #83

    i’d just like to point out that even if the executor was attacked by billions of Galaxy-class vessels, the empire has enough industrial muscle to build ~1.5 of these ships PER SECOND.

  84. Kniget December 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm -      #84

    you might as well have put “Shoe vs. Ant”

  85. Zervziel January 14, 2010 at 10:22 pm -      #85

    I must say one thing to clear up something said early on. Thepocalypse said the image pictured is an Imperial cruiser which is incorrect, it is indeed a Star Dreadnaught (SSD). In fact that is the in-game model for the Executor from Empire at War.

  86. Siggymansz January 23, 2010 at 8:02 am -      #86

    dude its more like Shoe Vs grain of dirt

  87. shaun182 January 23, 2010 at 9:41 am -      #87

    you could imagine the SSD disabling and the sending stormtroopers to board the enterprise and take control which shouldnt be any real problem.

    however what would be the changes to the empire after they discover and start to use

    the transporters, replicators and perhaps better holographic technology which includes hard light holograms something that isnt widely avaible in the SW universe i believe.

  88. Omega-88 May 19, 2010 at 12:27 pm -      #88

    Super Star destroyer wins with easy.A little star destroyer wins even, st tech sucks.

    An example:

    awfulcontent.com/article/starwars-vs-startrek.jpg

  89. Picard578 July 1, 2010 at 11:31 am -      #89

    About SSD, I’m not sure. About ISD, Galaxy class wins. 300 000 kilometer range (OK, that is for Nebula but it’s ‘relative’ of Galaxy) against 30 kilometers range at best? And even if we take TNG TM as canon, and accept 64 kiloton yield for photon torpedo (althought it is actually more), both ISD’s and SSD’s guns are decidedly sub-kiloton.

  90. Darkbladex96 July 1, 2010 at 11:56 am -      #90

    “About SSD, I’m not sure. About ISD, Galaxy class wins. 300 000 kilometer range (OK, that is for Nebula but it’s ‘relative’ of Galaxy) against 30 kilometers range at best? And even if we take TNG TM as canon, and accept 64 kiloton yield for photon torpedo (althought it is actually more), both ISD’s and SSD’s guns are decidedly sub-kiloton.”

    what?

    you know nothing about starwars do you? a SSD can be and 11 mile long dreadnaugt that pumps out 100 times the firepower of an ISD. and imperial star destroy can completely glass a planet in an hour. and SSD can glass the same planet in 36 seconds. the shield generators on board produce about as much as a medium sized star. that plus the inferior star trek weapons and shield make entire Federation fleets little threat to empire ships.

    Star treks low megaton shielding is ridiculous when compared to starwars. federation shielding has failed in the face of megaton yeild weaponry. every turbolaser is a couple of megatons…..there are 5000 weapon placement on an SSD. and ISDs high end assume max was 860 teratons a sec………..understand?
    100x that is 8600 teratons a second….that enough to literally vaporize any federation ship or fleet in one barrage. add in the thousands of fighters that an SSD can carry….this is a stompfest. the enterprise has no chance, no hope.

  91. Picard578 July 7, 2010 at 7:40 am -      #91

    Photon torpedoes are actually in high megaton to low gigaton range.

    www.st-v-sw.net/STSWrise.html

    And all you said about SW has no relevance – it is contradicted by higher canon.

  92. Picard578 July 7, 2010 at 8:30 am -      #92

    “In fact the name of the vessel originated from it’s ability to depopulate entire star systems within a matter of hours. ”

    No.

    This is strength list:

    Star DREADNOUGHT.
    Star BATTLECRUISER.
    Star CRUISER.
    Star DESTROYER.
    BATTLECRUISER.
    HEAVY CRUISER.
    CRUISER.
    DESTROYER.
    FRIGATTE,
    CORVETTE.
    FIGHTER.

    Noticed something? Star- prefix is akin to super-. It does not mean it can actually destroy star system – why they would need Death Star if single Star Destroyer can lay waste to entire world – virtually accomplishing similar goal (elimination of hostile population) with much more efficiency and far less cost – in matter of hours? Or seconds, as you claim for SSD?

  93. Picard578 July 7, 2010 at 10:57 am -      #93

    “I apologize for the double post, but I had dig through my garage to find my old Star Wars and Star Trek technical manuals (Yes I collect the books, and no, I’m not ashamed) just to make a direct and objective comparison with no arguments.

    Here are the stats for a Star Destroyer, which is approximately a tenth of the size of a super star Destroyer:

    Light guns: 300 million GW (6 megatons per shot, 24 guns, assume 1 shot every 2 seconds for time-averaged power output rather than peak output).
    Heavy guns: 2.4 million megatons (200 gigatons per shot from each turret, 12 turrets).
    Sublight acceleration: 3500G.
    Operational range: 250,000 light-years (before refueling).
    Shield heat dissipation: 70 trillion GW peak.
    Reactor power: 200 trillion GW max.
    Max hyperspace speed: 10,000-10,000,000c (The books is never clear on this matter).

    Source: Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections

    – – –

    Now for the Star Trek Enterprise-D class federation vessel:

    Main phasers: 3.6 GW (5.1 MW per emitter, 200 emitters in the main phaser array, 2 full-sized saucer arrays and 3 smaller roughly half-size arrays on the stardrive section). Roughly 3 kilotons.
    Photon torpedoes: 64 megatons max theoretical (based on 1.5 kg antimatter payload).
    Sublight acceleration: 1000G.
    Operational range: 2750 light-years.

    Shield heat dissipation: 3311 GW peak (473 GW per generator x 7 generators)
    Reactor power: ~4 billion GW at max warp 9.6. From the chart, their fuel supply for 7 years of warp 6 cruising would be roughly 2E23 J (enough to run a Star Destroyer reactor at full power for just one second).

    Max warp speed: ~2000c (warp 9.6), sustainable 12 hours for a single sprint of roughly 3 light-years. This appears to have increased to roughly 3000c for newer ships such as the Intrepid-class.

    – – –

    So Bobby Funn, what do you think of the “inferior” technology of the Star Wars universe now? If the SSD is the equivalent of an 18th Century Frigate, what does that make the Enterprise? A raft?

    Oh, I amuse myself.”

    Standard Warsie tactics. Take best values for SW (even if found under pile of garbage) and worst for ST (note same as before) and then compare it.

  94. Picard578 July 7, 2010 at 12:19 pm -      #94

    “Source: Star Wars Incredible Cross-Section”

    And title is true – it simply isn’t credible.

  95. Picard578 July 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm -      #95

    “Exact velocities were only given in the Voyager episode “The 37’s” where Tom Paris describes Voyager’s velocity at warp factor 9.9 (under the new warp table formula) as being about 4 billion miles per second, which would be over 21,000 times the speed of light.”

  96. L-W July 9, 2010 at 12:20 am -      #96

    1) “both ISD’s and SSD’s guns are decidedly sub-kiloton.”

    So how does that explain away how light trench mounted cannons were capable of totally vaporizing rocks equal to or larger than the Millennium Falcon? Oh right, you can’t, because basic science is simply beyond your comprehension.

    2) “Photon torpedoes are actually in high megaton to low gigaton range.”

    Except I’ve proven THAT wrong on multiple occasions. Or did you forget how I destroyed these claims already?

    3) “And all you said about SW has no relevance – it is contradicted by higher canon.”

    Of course you can actually cite these contradictions, right?

    4) “Noticed something? Star- prefix is akin to super-. It does not mean it can actually destroy star system – why they would need Death Star if single Star Destroyer can lay waste to entire world – virtually accomplishing similar goal (elimination of hostile population) with much more efficiency and far less cost – in matter of hours? Or seconds, as you claim for SSD?”

    You do realize that there are literally tens of order of magnitude of difference between laying waste to a planet and her surface and actually turning the entire planet to rubble and dust? Right?

    You aren’t SO stupid after all that you need this explained to you?

    5) “Standard Warsie tactics. Take best values for SW (even if found under pile of garbage) and worst for ST (note same as before) and then compare it.”

    If you can find higher figures, then you’re welcome to try. However as I’ve proven on previous threads, this is pretty much the most generous estimate that could be found for Federation forces in any source (or do I have to remind you of the Defiant being gutted by a 12 megajoule impact?).

    6) “Exact velocities were only given in the Voyager episode “The 37′s” where Tom Paris describes Voyager’s velocity at warp factor 9.9 (under the new warp table formula) as being about 4 billion miles per second, which would be over 21,000 times the speed of light.”

    A) Star Wars: The Clone Wars

    i139.photobucket.com/albums/q311/Lew88/CloneWars.jpg

    The red line represents Anakin and Ahsoka traveling to Teth from Christophsis following the Separatist siege of the planet. They are given orders to complete the mission in one planetary rotation (Tatooine day) and proceed to assault a settlement outpost (Teth day) before Droids ambush them, forcing them to hunker down.

    Republic reinforcements arrive, allowing Anakin and Ahsoka to make a break for a class 3.0 shuttle undergoing repairs and escape the planet (Teth night). The ORANGE line represents the return journey to Tatooine, to which they crash land upon their destination in the middle of the desert (Tatooine late afternoon). They then walk a considerable distance, until both Anakin and Ahsoka go their separate ways (Taooine dusk).

    A journey of just slightly less than 50,000 light years.

    B) Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

    i139.photobucket.com/albums/q311/Lew88/Mauljounrey.jpg

    Anakin discusses the Boonta Eve Race with Qui-Gon, which is to happen the next day. Meanwhile Palpatine, standing on his balcony in Coruscant, discusses the fate of Senator Padme with Darth Maul and orders him to travel to Tatooine to find her.

    In the next scene (Tatooine night), Qui-Gon is taking a blood sample from Anakin before ordering him to rest up for the big race the next day. The following morning (Tatooine dawn), before the race, Darth Maul deploys probe droids after departing his vessel.

    From my estimation, Tatooine is approximately 40,000 light years from Coruscant, which is supported by official literature that states that Tatooine is 43,000 light years from the core (ref. Star Wars: Complete Locations), therefore even if it took him twelve hours, he would still be traveling at approximately 30,000,000c on a class 3.0 engine.

    However this assumes that Maul didn’t have to stop to gather equipment, fuel his ship, put together the necessary supplies for an assassination mission and instead just jumped in the Scimitar and just rode off into hyperspace without even a moment of preparation.

    C) Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

    i139.photobucket.com/albums/q311/Lew88/Palpatine.jpg

    Darth Vader and Obi-Wan are dueling over the Mustafar lava field, meanwhile Palpatine (having just defeated Yoda) and notes aloud to Mas Ameeda that his apprentice is in danger.

    Obi-Wan and Vader continue to duel over the gantry until it collapses, forcing them to fighter over ray shielded platforms until Ob-Wan offers an impasse that Vader ignores, much to his own folly. With both legs and his left arm amputated he proceeds to fall closer to the lava, setting himself alight and scouring both the clothes and hair off his body.

    Suffering mortal wounds, Obi-Wan leaves him to die, but quickly notes that he has just felt Palpatine arrive over the planet (ref. novelization) and therefore hastens his exit. Palpatine lands and administers badly needed medical aid to his badly damaged apprentice.

    This is one of the fastest Hyperdive incidents seen in the movies, which suggests that Palpatine traveled 53,000 light years from the core (ref. Complete Locations) in a few hours since it is unlikely that Obi-Wan and Vader dueled for the better part of a day and that Vader clung to the side of the bank for any greater length of time due to his certainly mortal injuries.

    Even being extremely conservative, this puts Palpatine’s journey at velocities of hundreds of millions of time the speed of light and approaches billions given sufficient room for interpretation.

  97. Neutrality July 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm -      #97

    oh now this is just mean…hasn’t ST taken enough of a beating
    of course it’s always a pleasure to see the SSD executor on the site

  98. ZomBninjasamurai July 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm -      #98

    “oh now this is just mean…hasn’t ST taken enough of a beating
    of course it’s always a pleasure to see the SSD executor on the site”

    just ask Picard… Star Trek ships are vastly superior… they can easily take out ships capable of turning a planet into molten slag in a matter of hours…

  99. Neutrality July 10, 2010 at 12:28 pm -      #99

    just ask Picard… Star Trek ships are vastly superior… they can easily take out ships capable of turning a planet into molten slag in a matter of hours…

    @ZomBninjasamurai
    is that the tone of sarcasm? i wouldn’t rely on Picard much though

  100. ZomBninjasamurai July 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm -      #100

    “is that the tone of sarcasm? i wouldn’t rely on Picard much though”

    yeah its sarcasm… forgot how hard it is to convey through the internet…

1 2 3 7 Next »

Leave A Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Web Design MymensinghPremium WordPress ThemesWeb Development

Nope

No way I go here alone

17 Rare Star Wars Pictures

To see them, click here

Comic Con 2013 Cosplay Gallery

Just a ton of pictures of cosplayers from the 2013 Comic Con event

Ancient Aliens Map

If you ever watched the show "Ancient Aliens" and wanted a quick reference to where all the locations they mention are at, this is the site for you!

Fictional Universes Database

Soon to be shut down by Google, but here is a great starting point for Fictional Universes

99 Star Wars Pics

Some are cool, some are a bit absurd, but they are all based on Star Wars

Alternate Movie Posters

Something a bit distinct - Check them out

Epic Swiss Army Knife

Not Really...

Future Me

Write yourself an email letter to the future - Future Me

Neil Degrasse Tyson

Star Talk Radio - As always, keep looking up!