Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Planet Destroyers (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=10638)

gjc8 12-06-2005 10:34 PM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragabash Moon
Well, that was the whole point of why they didn't just blast Yavin THEN blow up Yavin IV. They had to go AROUND Yavin to blast Yavin IV. It's details you get from a novel/RPG sourcebook/trivia junkie that aren't in a movie. Plot wise, it was to give the rebels time to stop the Death Star, but still it goes to show... gas giants the Death Star doesnt' affect (Now Bespin on the other hand... being flammable, MIGHT be able to be ignited, that's not the same as being able to blow up a gas giant planet)

Did you even read my whole post? I said it could damage them without destroying them. It could leave a scar, like this one from the comet that hit Jupiter, or blow a portion of the mass into space without totally destroying the planet. If by doesn't work you mean doesn't destroy, then you're probably right, but it would have some effect on them.
I'm reluctant to place total faith in "novel/RPG sourcebook/trivia junkie" when it conflicts with common sense, as they often have less than perfect accuracy even in regards to the movies (for example, a number of sources list Executor as 5 miles long, clearly in conflict with film comparisons to Imperial Star Destroyers).

Six_Gun_Sam 12-07-2005 05:49 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toubrouk

14D x 1023

Damn.

So much for using conventional weaponry.

Toubrouk 12-07-2005 06:08 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Six_Gun_Sam
Damn.

So much for using conventional weaponry.

You can try.
It's like digging a tunnel to Australia...

This brought my previous point back: That level of power (and the defense to block it) is so ridiculously high that it fall in the realm of plot devices.

gjc8 12-07-2005 06:18 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toubrouk
DR 1.77 x 1024
HT 3.08 x 1024

Ok. May numbers were many orders of madnitude too low. But that's easy to fix.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Me
Ok. So, the Death Star, say, does (10^12)d damage, and has ROF 10 (but fires for 1 round only). If top-of-the-line planatary shields give, say, DR 10^13 semi-ablative, that would work-out about right. The ROF simulates the ability to fire at less than full power, if the need arises.

So up the damage to (10^24)d, and the DR to (10^25).

While usually planet destroying superweapons are plot devices, they can be represented in GURPS quantitaively, if someone feels the need.

Toubrouk 12-07-2005 06:28 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
gjc8,

My numbers are based on the idea that the Earth is crushed by a Gigantic Space Monster(tm). The mechanics of the Death Star(tm) might work differently. Let's take as a theory that the Death Star(tm) Don't blew-up a planet but make it's center boils. That pressure would blew-up the planet and not the beam itself. Then, it would take less power to drill a hole to overheat the core than wasting the entire planet into pebbles.

So your numbers might be right on the spot.

Ragabash Moon 12-07-2005 08:13 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gjc8
Did you even read my whole post? I said it could damage them without destroying them. It could leave a scar, like this one from the comet that hit Jupiter, or blow a portion of the mass into space without totally destroying the planet. If by doesn't work you mean doesn't destroy, then you're probably right, but it would have some effect on them.
I'm reluctant to place total faith in "novel/RPG sourcebook/trivia junkie" when it conflicts with common sense, as they often have less than perfect accuracy even in regards to the movies (for example, a number of sources list Executor as 5 miles long, clearly in conflict with film comparisons to Imperial Star Destroyers).

Yes, I did read your entire post. What would be the point of damaging Yavin? Whether the laser damaged it or not, it wouldn't destroy it, which is the whole point.

As for not placing faith in the novel/RPG/Trivia, up until very recently Lucas was very adamant about what went into books, including the RPG. It's only been since he did the new trilogy and contradicted what he previously told West End (and he now claims was never written down, but then how many of you have read the interviews West End did with Lucas for the Adventure Journals? 9 out of 10 people never heard of the interviews, he can plausibly claim they never happened) and other novels have been contradicted (and are therefore out of print because of that). Even KotOR 2 contradicts the Tales of the Jedi comics series, which at the time they were written, Lucas made sure everything was "canon" with him and didn't contradict... now, he doesn't care, as long as everyone watches his movies, he could care less what other people write in his universe.

The new movies might have been novelizations by other than Lucas himself, but the original three movies, Lucas wrote the novels.

As for the size of the Executor, are you seriously implying that as great as the original Star Wars movies are, do you really think that George Lucas did the math of a 5 mile ship scaled down to his models? you probably won't like it, cause it's not stated in the movies, but a Star Destroyer cannot land on a planet. It's too big. It's too heavy, if the re-entry heat didn't burn up half the atmosphere, it would crash and be a "planet buster". They are built in space because of their sheer size, if they were build on a planet with any gravity, they would never be able to get off the planet.

Toubrouk 12-07-2005 08:42 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragabash Moon
As for the size of the Executor, are you seriously implying that as great as the original Star Wars movies are, do you really think that George Lucas did the math of a 5 mile ship scaled down to his models? you probably won't like it, cause it's not stated in the movies, but a Star Destroyer cannot land on a planet. It's too big. It's too heavy, if the re-entry heat didn't burn up half the atmosphere, it would crash and be a "planet buster". They are built in space because of their sheer size, if they were build on a planet with any gravity, they would never be able to get off the planet.

The Executor would fall into the range of 11-12 miles, not 5.

Here's for your info:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd5mile.html

But even then, can a Star-Destroyer would be able to support his own weight in a 1G environment? I had always had the feeling that those ships had a tough external shell and no structure inside.

Another point; what kind of fuel they are using? Maybe the worse damage a Star Destroyer can do to a planet is by a catastrophic fuel explosion. Let's keep in mind that Anti-Matter do 6D X 2.27 X 10^10 explosive damage by the pound. This let me say that planetfall is the least of their worries...

whswhs 12-07-2005 08:44 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toubrouk
Okay, let's put some numbers into the problem:



So, what we need to know is; what kind of explosive we need to blow a nice chunk of matter that got two-thirds the density of iron weighting 5.98 x 1024 kg.

I wouldn't look at it that way.

The earth has both HP and DR. The HP come from the total mass, which you can get from density and radius. But the DR appears to come from the crust, which is a fairly thin layer of rock. Once you get through that, you're dealing with fluid material most of the way down.

I wouldn't consider the core as having DR; it's not shielding anything. Oh, I suppose you could say that the outer surface of the core has a DR, like any other chunk of solid iron, but compared to the damage that can shatter a planet, it's going to be pretty negligible. You might as well assume that the entire mass of the earth is one HP pool, and not try to do layered defenses.

Now, a gas giant is not going to have any DR, if you look at it this way. Jupiter's surface is not rock.

Toubrouk 12-07-2005 11:16 AM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
whswhs,

You got the main problem with my maths, we dont have the perfect 5 Tons, 1 Cubic Meter sample of "Earth" to get the equation right. There's also the case of how the physics of material composing the planet would react to a stress.

As far as the Death Star(tm) is concerned, I will return to my theory about how the weapon work; the beam punch a hole throught the crust and bake the center of the planet. The core of the planet turn into plasma and, by expansion, blew the planet up. An egg in a microwave came into my mind.

For all the "Shooting throught Yavin" debate goes, i have to said that it fails into the realm of the plot device. Let's just imagine that a beam able to make a planet blow-up got througth a gaz giant. Even if it lost 99% of it's power on it's way, the impact on the planet will be apocalyptic. I can imagine a hole in the planet's crust ten of kilometers across and vaporized ashes everywhere; a nuclear winter without atmosphere.

In the original "Star-Wars"(tm), there's also another problem. The Imperials were slowly waiting that Yavin got ENTIERELY out of the way before shooting Yavin 4. Why? Let's take as an idea that the beam might deviate due to (Higher Yavin atmosphere, Yavin gravitic pull, weird shooting arc, your pick), What is the final result here? Do the planet will be in smaller pebbles if the beam hit at the middle instead of 2-3 thousands Km more to the left?

It's all about the script, you know...

naloth 12-07-2005 12:31 PM

Re: Planet Destroyers
 
Probably because they didn't feel they needed to shoot through the planet or skim it's atmosphere. You're forgetting the sheer arrogance factor.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.