Search results

Oh, I love the T-Bomb mission. Even though I know it's an utterly unfeasible way to destroy a planet (to wit, seismic reactions are insufficient to disrupt the structure of an entire planet, even one as tectonically unstable as Kilrah, though the T-Bomb probably could have completely collapsed...

Well, yes. The energy release that we're talking about, whether an exajoule or 1E20 exajoules, is quite beyond the technological capacity of 21st century Earth. The problem is that any of these so-called "elegant" solutions would in fact take far more energy than simply blowing the planet...

While I won't discount this possibility, speculation on abilities that we haven't seen nor heard allusions to in the canon are pointless.

Not without FAR more energy put in than you would eventually get out. Fission in sub-lead elements is a net-energy-loss reaction, just as fusion is a net-energy-loss reaction in supra-lead elements. Really, guys. There's no way to blast an Earth-type planet apart with less than 2.4E32 joules...

Take a college geology course. Even though nobody has ever physically been to the core of the Earth or even past the crust, we DO know what the interior composition of the Earth is, by radiometric and seismographic analysis. The core layers of the Earth are molten (outer core) and solid (inner...

Well, the core of the Earth is a solid lump of iron at about 10,000 degrees C (kept solid by the pressure of six sextillion tons of rock pushing down on it). Any planet that humans can live on without major terraforming would presumably be of similar composition and size to the Earth. The...

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Myths/Myths_SW.html <= This is the correct page. Check out the section marked, "The Death Star might have employed a "trick" to destroy Alderaan, rather than supplying all of the energy itself." Especially check out the sub-page debunking the "fission/fusion"...

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Tech/Beam/DeathStar.html Read the page. It explains in quite clear terms that any alternate method of destroying a planet would take much MORE energy than just blowing it to hell with a staggering amount of raw firepower. In short, there is simply NO WAY that...

That would take *MORE* energy than just plowing the f****r with enough destructive force to blow it to smithereens. 2E32 watts is the dead minimum power needed to destroy an Earth-sized planet. Additionally, because the physical characteristics of Kilrah (except for its tectonic activity)...

Tolwyn's numbers are quite wrong, by the way. The Death Star, by comparison, based on calculations that OTHER PEOPLE did from the Star Wars footage, puts out about 4.2E38 watts in its superlaser blast. Vesuvius's gun had similar effects to the Death Star superlaser blast, obliterating Loki...

Just out of curiosity, does the Maria Magdalena count as a real ship, or is it a convenient construction for the simulator missions? Because if she *is* a real ship, then we have another Vesuvius-class ship. :)

Naismith is a royal dickweed. So he's the worst.

The Dragon's main advantage is heavy armament and cloaking. The thing turns for crap - it's almost as bad as the T-Bolt. For most mission types, I'd take the Bearcat over the Dragon. Unfortunately, the Dragon is the "star fighter" (pardon the pun) of WC4, and because of this, you don't get...

This is only tangentially related, but I hope that Sega entering the waters of 3rd party software development will kick EA out of its doldrums of only supporting software titles that are "sure fire" money games (when, I ask you, is the last time that EA released a game with the quirky brilliance...

In WC4 and before, Space Force was responsible for ALL fighter operations in the games - there were *no* fighter pilots in the games which carried Naval ranks, and this stands to reason - after all, if you have mixed ranks, is a Captain equivalent to a Colonel, or is a Captain equivalent to a...

The obsolete fighter I miss the most is the Rapier, for its swiftness, agility and (most of all) its good, all-range weapons loadout. Sure, it had armor equivalent to a Hornet, but my motto is, if you're relying on armor, you're taking too many hits.

In "Fleet Action," the Joint Chiefs of Staff were the heads of the Army, Marine Corps and Navy, whereas in the modern U.S. forces, the JCS are the heads of the Army, Air Force and Navy. Is the Space Force perhaps an arm of the Navy? If they were, it would explain why Space Force personnel...