Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20); Blog post: GIF Roundup (04/11/20)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]  (Read 10043 times)

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2016, 08:19:46 PM »

I personally enjoyed the movie a lot, I thought the main flaw was in not having enough time develop all of the characters, but I saw a physics discussion so I thought I would jump in.

Spoiler
The scene were the rebels used the Hammerhead corvette to shove one (disabled) star destroyer into another, which in turn flew into the shield generator station. Who ever came up with that scene apparently doesn't know or care about f=m*a. How can a little corvette accelerate a Star Destroyer so fast that another Star Destroyer with, like, a thousand times more powerful engines can't evade? Or when they are so close together that it becomes impossible, how can the first Star Destroyer build up the energy to just just plow through the second one, when all the acceleration it receives comes from one tiny corvette for a short time? That's like me pushing one parking car into another and expecting them to both explode from the impact.
[close]

Spoiler
There are two possible scenarios here in terms of the orbital dynamics

one: the ships are all in a conventional orbit meaning they are not stationary (relative to the surface of the planet) but actually traveling at thousands of miles per hour (in order to maintain the radius of their orbit which is dependent on their velocity). In this case, all you would have to do to de-orbit the star destroyer would be to slow it down. I imagine the hammerhead was some sort of tug so it would be designed to accelerate large ships reasonable quickly (we have naval tugs that do this on earth). Its also worth noting that the other star destroyer would only be able to accelerate quickly forward (because the only major engines are on the back), so evasion might be difficult and the officers were also likely not expecting to have to evade a friendly ship crashing into them (at this point I'm just shamelessly defending the film, but I think it's a fairly reasonable explanation).

two: the ships are stationary and not in orbit. In this case the ships have to maintain their altitude with some sort of continuous force. This doesn't really make sense as the main engines would have to be on the bottom of the ship, or they have some crazy internal propulsion technology but in that case, why would you need engines on the back at all? Regardless, anything goes because its all just crazy technobabble.

In either case you have to remember that the ships are not a stationary system but rather in orbit. A decent comparison might be with aircraft, where one small plane hits another large one from the top causing it to crash down onto a third plane. Not exact, but closer than trying to compare it to some physical interaction on the surface of the planet.

I'm normally very critical of movies that obviously violate physical laws but I felt like this fell reasonably within the constraints of physics with some sci-fi flare, it didn't bother me when I saw it. It's all pretty subjective though and if it bothered you a lot, this post probably won't make you feel any better. :P
[close]
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions?
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2016, 10:22:40 AM »

Spoiler
Yeah. Arguably even that short reaction time should have been enough to match the speed the corvette could have put on a Star Destroyer, but even if we suspend disbelief here - how could the collision have been so severe? They were just lightly bumping into each other, it's like the ships had proximity fuses. It just felt very wrong is all.
[close]
Spoiler
If you assume that the Imperial fleet was roughly a third of an orbit away from the Death Star at Endor (they're supposed to be on the 'far side' of the sanctuary moon; a third of an orbit at a low altitude might put them just over the horizon) at the time the Rebel fleet arrived and was decelerating constantly from that point to the point at which the Rebel fleet became aware of the Imperial fleet's presence, then Star Destroyers demonstrate a linear deceleration of roughly a few thousand gravities in Return of the Jedi. That's with the only visible thruster ports pointing the wrong way. If Star Destroyers are capable of an acceleration of even a thousand gravities with the thrusters pointed the wrong way, a Star Destroyer can move 5km - 3 shiplengths - backwards from a dead stop in the space of a single second. We can also look at Executor's crash-dive into the Death Star; Executor appears to travel more than its own length in the space of perhaps 5 seconds and started from a dead stop relative to the Death Star. Executor appears to be about 10 times longer than the standard Star Destroyers based on movie visuals and in current-canon seems to be about 19km long, so if you assume constant linear acceleration and a total distance traveled of 19km in 5 seconds it demonstrated a linear acceleration of around 150 gravities. If this is Executor's best performance, which is unlikely given that it was also turning at the time and does not appear to have any means by which it could turn aside from differential thrust or thrust vectoring, and further assume that regular Star Destroyers can at least match that (they should be able to; mass goes up roughly with the cube of the ship's length whereas thrust should go up roughly with the square, assuming proportionate increases in the other dimensions of the vessel, so standard Star Destroyers need relatively less powerful drive thrusters to match Executor's sublight performance and could greatly exceed its sublight performance if the power of the thrusters relative to the mass of the ship is the same for standard Star Destroyers as for Executor), then a standard Star Destroyer ought to be able to move forward roughly 800m, or about half a shiplength, in a single second from a dead stop. The Star Destroyer struck by the disabled Star Destroyer should have been more than capable of evading the disabled ship.

Heck, if you want turning instead of linear motion - consider that Executor, which in current-canon is about 19km long and in the movies appears to be at least 10 times the length of a standard Star Destroyer, completes a roughly 90 degree turn in the space of about 5 seconds when it crash-dives into the Death Star, and it does this without any visible bending in or damage to its hull. That's incredible, both from a material strength and a performance perspective, for such a large vessel, and even more so performance-wise if you restrict maneuvering to differential thrust from the visible thruster ports. Standard Star Destroyers are slightly wider relative to their length than Executor is, so they should have a better turning moment (which means a higher rotational acceleration and thus quicker turning) using differential thrust from the visible thruster ports than Executor can get, unless Executor's thrusters are relatively more powerful than a standard Star Destroyer's are.
[close]

Spoiler
I'm not bothered that it doesn't make sense if you think about it, it's a space opera after all. And I'm sure there's technobabble that could "explain" it.
I'm bothered that it looked spontaniously, glaringly wrong to me, meaning they did a poor job of selling that important moment visually.
[close]
Spoiler
In addition to not making sense if you think about it and seeming off when you watch it, it also doesn't seem consistent with The Empire Strikes Back, where we seem to have witnessed two Star Destroyers collide with one another during the Millenium Falcon's escape into the asteroid field. Those Star Destroyers suffered no visible damage, whereas judging from what happens in Rogue One they ought to have sheared a sizeable portion of one another's superstructures off.
[close]

Quote
Manages to fit itself very comfortably in the established (original trilogy) universe
There are some points where I'd debate that, e.g. the event which set up the point under discussion in the spoilers. Original (and prequel) trilogy starfighter weapons just aren't that powerful, or at least if there are any such potent starfighter weapons they were never shown, and the existence of such starfighter weapons calls into serious question the value of capital ships (especially battleship-type capital ships) in the setting, the basis of the Imperial Navy's belief that starfighters are not significant threats to capital ships, and the rationale behind the shift from the carrier-type Venator-class Star Destroyers shown in Revenge of the Sith, which last I checked carried around 428 starfighters, to the more battleship-type Imperial Star Destroyers of the original trilogy, which last I checked carried around 72 starfighters - barely more than one sixth the older Star Destroyer class's fighter complement, and with the newer class presumably having the benefit of the insight that a recent war gives into what constitutes a good ship design. It also leads to the question of why we never see starfighters make effective attacks against enemy capital ships while unsupported by friendly capital ships in the original and prequel trilogies outside a couple instances of extremely good luck. It does more or less fit with the EU's fascination with starfighters, however.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 10:30:55 AM by Aeson »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions?
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2016, 12:25:11 PM »

...we seem to have witnessed two Star Destroyers collide with one another during the Millenium Falcon's escape into the asteroid field. Those Star Destroyers suffered no visible damage...

It's funny that you bring up the example from The Empire Strikes Back where the Star Destroyers collide, because they are clearly not able to evade even though they have quite a bit of time to do so. We can also assume that the reason the Star Destroyers take no hull damage is that they were shielded.

Spoiler
Admittedly, the collision from Rogue One doesn't make sense because the unshielded ship should be the one to take massive hull damage, but based on materials that exist in our universe, there's not really anything that could withstand the kind of forces that would arise from objects that massive colliding so it makes sense that something should catastrophically fail, it was just the wrong ship.
[close]

In terms of the Executor scene in Return of the Jedi, you didn't take into account the gravitational forces of Endor, Endor's moon, or the Death Star itself, and since we can't see the actual alignment of most of those bodies, it's almost impossible to figure out what the capabilities of the Executor actually are.
It's worth saying that if you're looking for physical realism, sci-fi is generally not a great place to go, but I find it super fun to think through all of this.
It's also worth saying that at this point I am just playing devils advocate and I don't think the Starwars films are some god-like pinnacle of perfection.
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions?
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2016, 02:42:39 PM »

Nitpicking aside, the space battle was excellent; reminiscent of the excellent battles in the original. (And to a lesser extent, the prequels)
It put the Poe-blowathon in TFA to shame.

It also made me think Gareth Edwards (Director) might have played the X-Wing/Tie Fighter video games in his youth, as I felt it captured the spirit of the combat in those games really well.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 03:10:20 PM by TJJ »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2016, 04:06:44 PM »

Since you have seen the movie TJJ, this thread may now contain spoilers without tags. I added a hint.

There are some points where I'd debate that, e.g. the event which set up the point under discussion in the spoilers.

I was thinking more of the excellent plot transition and the pick-up of several loose threads from ANH. We now know about the "first battle of the rebellion fleet" mentioned in the ANH crawl. We know why Vader was pursuing Leia, and why he knew she had the plans (and how ridiculous here lies were^^). We know of course why the Death Star had a fatal fault in the first place.
But there are also minor things. For example, they talk about how the senate limits the options of the Empire in R1, and in ANH there's a comment on how they are finally free from them. Or how Leia knows about Obi-Wans presence on Tatooine (step-daddy told her). Or how they basically acknowledge in-universe the thick plot armor all the Star Wars heroes have with the character of Chirrut (the monk guy), who believes that the force protects him from blaster fire until he has fulfilled his purpose.

The lore details might not be carried over perfectly, but I don't feel like Star Wars was ever about precise world-building. Not to me, at least.

It's worth saying that if you're looking for physical realism, sci-fi is generally not a great place to go, but I find it super fun to think through all of this.

I strongly disagree, it's just about the only genre were that matters. But, well, at his point I should probably clarify that I don't consider Star Wars to be sci-fi at all, it's pure fantasy. In a (pseudo-)technological setting. Real sci-fi (as in science + fiction) works are partly defined by there adherence to physical reality (and then often expanding on it in a very specific way). Examples would be films like 2001, Moon, The Martian, Contact or Arrival.


It put the Poe-blowathon in TFA to shame.

Technically there wasn't even a space battle in TFA, it was all planetside...


Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions?
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2016, 07:54:08 PM »

Quote
It's funny that you bring up the example from The Empire Strikes Back where the Star Destroyers collide, because they are clearly not able to evade even though they have quite a bit of time to do so. We can also assume that the reason the Star Destroyers take no hull damage is that they were shielded.
If you're restricted to differential thrust for turning and do not have the ability to reverse the thrust on one or more thrusters, you have to go forwards to turn. The Star Destroyers that appear to have collided in The Empire Strikes Back already had a significant velocity towards one another and were rotating towards one another as part of a maneuver to pursue the Millenium Falcon at the time when their crews became aware of the possibility of a collision.
Spoiler
This is a significantly more difficult scenario in which to avoid a collision than the scenario in Rogue One, where neither Star Destroyer has any significant velocity relative to the other and the vessels are oriented in such a way as to make moving forwards while turning something which tends to move the vessel out of the region where a collision is likely.
[close]

Quote
In terms of the Executor scene in Return of the Jedi, you didn't take into account the gravitational forces of Endor, Endor's moon, or the Death Star itself, and since we can't see the actual alignment of most of those bodies, it's almost impossible to figure out what the capabilities of the Executor actually are.
The distances involved are great enough that the gravitational attraction that the Executor feels towards any of the natural bodies in the system are unlikely in the extreme to amount to a net effect of more than perhaps a gravity or two of acceleration towards the Death Star, which is hardly worth accounting for when the constant-acceleration model's estimate puts the acceleration experienced at 150 gravities. The Death Star itself is the only large body both close enough and potentially massive enough to have a gravitational effect worth worrying about, but running numbers for the Death Star runs into a lot of issues - the size of the Death Star is unclear (the current canonical diameter of 160km doesn't really work for what is depicted in the movie, with the most egregious example being the scene where the Executor crashes into the Death Star; the geometry of that scene suggests that the smallest possible diameter for the Death Star is about 1000km, if the Executor is taken to be 19km long), the mass of the Death Star is completely unknown, and the distance between the Death Star and the Executor just prior to the Executor's crash dive is unclear but in excess of the Executor's overall length. We can maybe put an upper bound on the mass of the Death Star if we make some estimates of the Death Star's orbital altitude because we can see that the Death Star does not appear to be directly over the point on the moon's surface where the Rebel infiltration team is and does not appear to be massive enough to significantly affect the apparent gravity vector, but doing that introduces even more uncertainty into whatever number you were to come up with for the gravitational pull the Death Star exerts on the Executor and the overall effect is just a big question mark.

Beyond that, though, the Executor was part of a fleet which appears to have demonstrated the ability to decelerate at something in excess of 1000 gravities while closing with the Death Star, and this acceleration is reasonably consistent with the demonstrated accelerations of other spacecraft in other scenes, for example when the Rebel fleet 'pulls up' to avoid crashing into the Death Star's protective shield.

Quote
We know of course why the Death Star had a fatal fault in the first place.
Justifying the existence of the thermal exhaust port is very, very easy. Assuming that Alderaan is the same size and mass as Earth, the Death Star needed to deliver at least 2e32 J with the superlaser shot in order to destroy the planet (given the violence of the destruction event, the energy delivered was likely considerably higher). The sequence of events within the movie suggests that Alderaan was destroyed roughly a day before the Death Star was destroyed over Yavin IV. The Death Star was expected to be able to fire the superlaser at Yavin IV, suggesting that the reactors have had sufficient time to generate the 2e32 J required to destroy an Earth-like planet, which puts the lower bound for the power output of the Death Star reactors in excess of 2e27 W, which is roughly 10 times the total output of the Sun. Even very small inefficiencies are going to generate enormous amounts of waste heat when dealing with power outputs of this magnitude and you need some way to get rid of that waste energy before it can build up enough to endanger the Death Star, thus the existence of the thermal exhaust ports.

Justifying why the port targeted by the Rebellion was protected only as much as it was is also easy. This is a design problem, and if we're being at all reasonable we'll acknowledge that the designers do not have infinite time, infinite resources, and freedom from any other constraints which might limit their ability to mitigate the risks posed by the exhaust port. The project costs, in both time and resources, need to be managed, and that means that at some point somebody needs to say when enough effort has gone into any one particular portion of the design. We know that the vulnerability is small relative to the overall size of the Death Star, which may make it difficult to find, especially if the Death Star plans are not available and the attackers are instead required to rely upon whatever information their sensors can pick up. We know that some protection was intentionally provided to the exhaust port as it was ray shielded. We know that there is at least incidental protection for the exhaust port in the form of nearby surface emplacements which can fire along the trench that the Rebel pilots used for the approach to the missile launch point, in the form of other emplacements which cover the approaches to the trench, and in the form of the Death Star's fighter complement. We know that exploitation of the vulnerability could result in the destruction of the Death Star but are told that the probability of successfully exploiting the vulnerability is low (the shot is "impossible, even for a computer," and "one in a million"). While we do not have adequate information for a quantitative cost-benefit analysis, the qualitative information appears to suggest that the risk posed by this vulnerability is fairly low.

If we are the Death Star design and construction team, this does not sound like something that we should provide with additional protection at the cost of additional time and resources, especially if we're already running behind schedule and over budget and have the shadow of that paragon of patience, reason, and positive reinforcement known as Darth Vader looming over us. Sure, hindsight tells us that this is not the best decision that has ever been made, but if we want the project to be completed in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost, we have to be willing to settle for reducing risks to levels which we consider acceptable, not for making the risks go away entirely. It's possible that, once proven feasible, the Death Star will cease to be unique, which means that there's at least a remote possibility that a Death Star will one day engage another Death Star. Should we, as the designers of the Death Star, design the defenses of the Death Star under the assumption that the Death Star needs to be able to resist a full-power shot from a Death Star-type superlaser? Probably not. Should we design the defenses of the Death Star to resist an assault by 10,000 Star Destroyers, despite everything we know about the Rebellion suggesting that such a large fleet is well beyond its resources? Again, probably not. When attempting to mitigate risks as part of a design problem, the risks you focus your efforts upon and the amount of effort put into mitigating each risk need to be dependent upon the magnitude of the risk (which is some combination of the likelihood that the vulnerability will be successfully exploited and the degree of damage which successful exploitation of the vulnerability will cause) or you'll end up wasting a lot of effort protecting against events which are extremely unlikely to occur. There's a vulnerability which can result in the destruction of the Death Star but which can only be exploited by a starfighter making a one-in-a-million shot? That might very well be an acceptable risk; the Death Star has, or at least should have, a considerable fighter complement of its own to help mitigate the risk posed by this vulnerability, the Death Star's turbolasers, while not exactly what I'd call effective against the attacking Rebel fighters, were also not completely useless despite being optimized, at least in theory, for use against capital ships, and on top of that it's a very low probability event. It's like saying that WWII-era warships should have had better protection in their smokestacks to protect against bombs dropping down the stack and exploding in an engine room; sure, it's possible, and if it happens it's potentially crippling or fatal, but it's sufficiently unlikely that protecting against it to a greater extent than is already the case is not really worth the cost.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 07:59:49 PM by Aeson »
Logged

TJJ

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2016, 08:59:52 PM »

Wow, quite a lot of overthinking going on here!

Remember this is Star Wars, not Star Trek.
It's fantasy in space; all it aims to present is loose believability, not scientific accuracy.

It's like questioning the physics of Aragorn blocking swings from a Troll wielding an enormous sword in LOTR. (you don't!)
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2016, 10:59:01 PM »

Remember this is Star Wars, not Star Trek.
It's fantasy in space; all it aims to present is loose believability, not scientific accuracy.
Star Trek is at least as much fantasy in space as Star Wars is. The only differences are that Star Trek attempts (poorly) to pretend otherwise by making up technical-sounding nonsense to mask its lack of scientific accuracy (granted, Star Wars, especially in the newer movies, sometimes commits that sin, too), and that Star Trek is more of an episodic interpersonal relations drama while Star Wars tends more towards the heroic epic (original trilogy) or heroic tragedy (prequel trilogy).

Also, space opera is generally categorized under the broad umbrella of science fiction, though it usually falls somewhere in the ill-defined, hazy region between fantasy and science fiction which is often referred to as 'soft' sci-fi. If something is classed as science fiction rather than fantasy or 'regular' fiction, the implicit assumption is that at the very least the tools of scientific analysis work for most aspects of the setting even if actual science does not. Things may bend or break the laws of physics as currently understood, but - at least if the writers are doing their jobs well - a science fiction setting will be reasonably internally consistent. By contrast, a fantasy setting lacks the implicit assumption of internal consistency - e.g. in Harry Potter you can use magic to increase the amount of food you have but not to create food when you don't have any.

Granted, especially on the softer end of soft science fiction or in settings populated with works by many different writers, that assumption of internal consistency tends to run into issues.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2016, 12:18:21 AM »

If you're restricted to differential thrust for turning

There isn't any indication that ships in the Star Wars universe are limited to differential thrust. Modern satellites use technology like reaction wheels or magnetorquers which allow the vehicle to rotate in three dimensions without the use of thrusters. I would imagine the vehicles of the Star Wars universe would have much more advanced maneuvering technology than we do now. In reality, the scenes in Revenge of the Sith were likely inspired by naval combat and thus don't really make any sense in space.

Quote
...appears to have demonstrated the ability to decelerate at something in excess of 1000 gravities...
you've made this argument several times but I think it's worth noting that these ships are often decelerating from light speed and the technology that allows then to travel at light speed is separate from their sub-lightspeed propulsion technology. It's not clear whether the sublight tech gives them these capabilities or not. It's entirely possible that their hyperdrive technology is what allows then to decelerate so quickly and their sublight propulsion is not capable of the same acceleration.

I realize that at this point, we are basically just arguing over the technical specifications of technology that doesn't exist or have any basis in reality but I can't stop myself  :P
Logged

borgrel

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2016, 12:31:46 PM »

Remember this is Star Wars, not Star Trek.
It's fantasy in space; all it aims to present is loose believability, not scientific accuracy.

Well: talking for myself and not for anyone else
I'm not asking for scientific accuracy just consistency

And TFA is not even consistent with itself, forget about the first six movies
....and with that as the benchmark of disney's movie design, I have no interest in any of them
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2016, 01:17:59 PM »

I'm not asking for scientific accuracy just consistency

Maybe this is getting too philosophical, but: Isn't that almost the same in this context? "Scientific accuracy" means taking over real world parameters and adhering to them. "Consistency" means taking over specific made up parameters and adhering to them.

The big advantage of kicking scientific accuracy out of the window is that you can make happen whatever is best for the story, dramatics, comprehensibility and visual presentation. But when you make your own rules and stick to them closely, you are negating this advantage after some time. Your constraining your artistic freedom with rules that you (or someone else) made up at some other point to sell some other scene. In long running shows/franchises this becomes more and more obvious.

It helped my enjoyment of modern action franchise movies tremendously when I started thinking of anything happening as 50% canon, 50% situational/dramaturgic. Because, well, I think that's how most directors actually handle it.
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
    • Email
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2016, 05:47:36 PM »

It wasn't the thermal vent he spoke about, Aeson.
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2016, 07:49:20 AM »

It wasn't the thermal vent he spoke about, Aeson.
If you're arguing that the 'fatal flaw' is that the reactor blew up when damaged, consider that the minimum energy to destroy Alderaan, assuming Alderaan is approximately the same mass and diameter as Earth, is equivalent to that released by the annihilation of 1.1e15 kg of antimatter. If stored at 25 g/cm^3, that mass would fill a sphere more than 4km in diameter - and that's just for the antimatter; you need another 1.1e15 kg of matter with which to annihilate it.

That the Death Star blew up when the reactor system was damaged is unsurprising; the energy density of the fuel used has to be incredibly high, and an uncontrolled reaction - or even just containment failure, if at least some of the fuel used is antimatter - would be, at minimum, extremely dangerous. Sabotage was never necessary as an explanation for how or why the Death Star could be destroyed the way it was.
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 752
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
    • Email
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2017, 06:39:30 PM »

If you're arguing that the 'fatal flaw' is that the reactor blew up when damaged
Spoiler
Because in R1, it officially is the flaw that its creator planted in. I was talking about what was presented in the movie.
[close]

Not all reactors blow up when damaged. Fusion reactor for example will have its plasma cooled down upon contact with wall or something, though I guess it won't be entirely harmless.

And I doubt we can assume any sort of technological specification and make okay reasonings based on the assumption since its planet-killing death ray is powered by magical crystals. Any scientific facts could have been thrown out of considerations.

I won't say the vent was a flaw - A 'flaw' that requires a wielder of supernatural power(which is thought to be extinct) to exploit is not really a flaw.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 07:05:18 PM by Aron0621 »
Logged

Aeson

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Anyone seen Rogue 1 yet? opinions? [SPOILERS]
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2017, 02:11:54 AM »

Quote
And I doubt we can assume any sort of technological specification and make okay reasonings based on the assumption since its planet-killing death ray is powered by magical crystals. Any scientific facts could have been thrown out of considerations.
That we do not know how the magic crystals work is immaterial; with a minimum power output an order of magnitude greater and a total volume twelve orders of magnitude smaller than that of the Sun, we knew the Death Star used some process which was effectively magic to present-day science to generate its power anyways. Rogue One telling us that the reactors use magic crystals in some manner changes nothing.

Regardless, if you don't want to think, then I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3