posted
Okay Flarites, it's beeen far to long since we compared ship designs and relative strengths/weaknesses.
this time around, I'd like to examine ships of B5 against the other major franchises- Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate (lotta "star" in sci fi!)
If anyone has good comparison charts for size and scle, it'll greatly help- I've seen some silouettes comparing scles but they're generally low-res. A color chart (like Bernd's Trek charts) would rock- something we can assign meter length to!
Additional universes can be added as well- stuff like Honor Harrington or Aliens for example. Or halo- I'd love to see some halo comparisons.
SO: Who has the toughest battleship? Most agile capital ship? Best Fighters? Longest weapon's ranges? Most versitility?
I honestly believe that here, at Flare, we are the web's very best source for this kind of debate so lets have at it!
I'll start- It seems to me that the Asgard aliens from Stargate (and later the humans) have the fastest FTL abilities- in that they can transverse entire galaxies. Followed by the Empire from Star Wars, which in the revamped trilogy and prequels seems to have an insanely short travel time between points in the Old Republic (which does not cover the entire galaxy, but still).
Anyone close to these guys for speed?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Asgard/Ancient/Human FTL can not only cross the galaxy in short order but also travel between galaxies in a matter of weeks. Way faster than established warp speed in Trek.
Star Wars hyperdrive would seem to be the next fastest, agreed, going across the galaxy in hours.
I'm wondering if it was established in the show how far Galactica could jump? I can't remember...
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Galactica's range would probably be "faster" than Trek's speeds, since they can certainly jump at least a few light-years in a second and then jump again within at least a half an hour. But definitely a lot "slower" than that seen in SW or SG. The overall feel of action was that the entire series happened in the Milky Way. (Adama's "million light-years" comment in the finale is easily dismissed as hyperbole.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I recall that one BSG episode where Kara and others travel back to the 12 colonies, even after it seemed the were a long ways. I also have to wonder how big Cylon territory was. They seemed somewhat nomadic, what with their "homeworld" capable of movement.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
^The impression I got from BSG was that the only limitation on FTL range was the ability to calculate a given jump. Hence Cylon tech is better able to crunch the numbers and thus give them an edge in range over the Colonials who had technologically regressed, at least in terms of computers.
quote:Who has the toughest battleship? Most agile capital ship? Best Fighters? Longest weapon's ranges? Most versitility?
OK, this could be fun...
Toughest: Well are we talking in terms of weaponry or survivability? If the former then we're probably talking the Vorlon Planet Killer, if the latter...it's hard to say since that tends to hinge on shields, exotic armour materials etc and the fictional technologies of the various franchises may or may not interact very well. Take Dune for example. By all accounts, Holtzman shields are impenetrable to any physical impact above a certain velocity (something 5cm per secs IIRC) but has an extremely volatile reaction to lasbeams. If it'll have the same (or any) reaction to say a Starfleet phaser beam or a Peacekeeper pulse weapon is impossible to tell. Each universe after all has it's own rules.
Most agile capital ship: Almost certainly B5's Whitestars.
Best Fighters: "Best" is a very subjective term because again, each fiction universe has it's own little quirks. Like any weapon or military craft, a fighter is designed with a specific enemy and set of technological restrictions in mind. Is the Colonial Viper better than an EF Starfury because it can operate in vacuum and atmosphere? But a starfury has more powerful weapons (phased plasma, rather than railguns.) So where would that put the Thunderbolt? Operational versatility can be a weakness given the right (or indeed wrong) set of circumstances. What about a Peacekepper Prowler? It has some serious teeth and FTL capability but it seems to have a but of a glass jaw as it can't even take a glancing blow from a primitive Earth made tin can.
Longest weapon's ranges?: Bit of an odd question given that Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space!!! Seriously though, combat that takes place over distances where light lag would be an issue is rarely touched on outside of sci-fi literature, mostly because waiting an hour or a week before a projectile hits it's target doesn't make for exciting battle. As that video indicates, the range of a projectile (with or without mass) is limited only by something eventually getting in it's way. Be that in a few light seconds or in fifty billion years. I mean it's a fair bet that anything going fast enough to be considered a threat to a space based warship has an initial delta-v sufficient to escape the local star's gravity well. If not then I guess it'd just settle into an elliptical orbit.
Most versitility?: Oh this ones easy: Any Starfleet ship named Enterprise. Those things are like the cosmic swiss army knives of spaceships. Any problem can be fixed by reconfoobling trandphasic-gizotron compensator. Even space bees.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: but has an extremely volatile reaction to lasbeams.
I was sorta skimming and totally misread that as a volatile reaction to lesbians. Please write in your own jokes here.
In any case, I also submit for consideration my own Star Trek and Star Wars related writings, most specifically (given the requests for meterage, which I assume would also include cubic) my Volumetrics pages:
Quoting my site: "I'm not sure about the tech level of the Goa'uld . . . and it's hard to say what that is, since they're more of the tech leeching sort, as opposed to being tech developers. I do know that rather early on in the series Goa'uld ships started being able to make much better speed than their prior 10 times lightspeed hyperdrive limit, and they seemed to make some surprising advances in shielding technology (personal shielding for certain Goa'uld and starship shields effortlessly withstanding 1000 megaton nuclear weapons). In any event, the peculiar fragmentation and "checks and balances" of the Goa'uld system lord culture would make it hard to say just who has what. Ship to ship, though, I'd guesstimate them as a rough match for many types of Federation starship. But, that's just a rough placement. In a total war scenario, though, I think the Federation would "clean their chronometers", to coin a phrase, if even only because it is a united Starfleet.
As for the Asgard . . . they would quite probably wipe the floor with the UFP and the Empire, as could the Culture, several times over.
There's also the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, which is a pretty good show. I'm intrigued by the possibility that they have greater FTL velocities than either the Federation or the Empire, but other that that they are most likely toast (or, in the case of the Cylons, toasted toasters)."
Although there's been a great deal of Star Wars wanking over the years (especially in the EU, where certain children's books considered to be tech bibles by some were written specifically and explicitly to make Star Wars ships better compare against Trek ships), the films and CGI show do not give us evidence of super-fast hyperdrive. Calculations from quantifiable events give us several possibilities, some -- but not all -- faster than TNG-era maximum warp.
And their weapons range is atrocious, no better than the new BSG.
posted
I should probably warn that I'm pretty sure those B5 tech sites you've linked to are basically fanon. Actual canon B5 tech data is pretty scarce. I think it's that way by design as from what I gather, JMS doesn't want things getting too specific.
As for comparing FTL drives, I think because again each 'verse has it's own quirks it's a little bit unfair. For example, sticking with B5 for a moment, most ships in B5 depend on jumpgates to enter and exit hyperspace and on established routes marked by tachyon beacons to navigate from one point to another. In addition, this version of hyperspace dose not have an exact directly correlate to normal space. By that I mean travelling say 12Ly in 12Hrs doesn't mean a trip of 24Ly will necessarily last 24Hrs. It could be more, or even less. So dropping a by ship (even one with jump engines) into say the Star Wars galaxy will probably mean that ship is stranded. Similarly, Star Wars hyperdrive also depends on *precise* adherence to established safe routes, so similarly, an Imperial Star Destroyer in the Milky-way would be just as stranded.
Bottom line though, the fastest ships in sci-fi are probably the Guild heighliners from Dune. So fast they don't even move. I suppose you could count Stargate Atlantis's "wormhole drive" but that was a bit of an 11th hour arse pull and they probably won't try that again. I suppose the supergates count, if we also allow B5 jump gates, ME mass relays, the Machine in Contact and various other similar concepts throughout sci-fi. Hell, even the TMA-2 functioned as a "star gate."
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QUOTE]And their weapons range is atrocious, no better than the new BSG.
I'd think the longest ranged weapon and the most versitile would go to the Cardassian Dreadnought. Those would rack up a body count in most universes.
As to ranges, Trek seems to have it all over most genres and better destructive yields than SW or B5, with only capital ships of farscape coming close or exceeding. Trek Runabouts have a huge versitility, but certainly not the top FTL speeds, nor as agile as a Starfury (though Runabouts are much more durable). Trek sensors beat all comers, handily.
Star Wars ranges are pathetic- with capital ships closing to point blank ranges (or at least easy visual range with the human eye- a few kilometers or so tops). Their weapon yields also seem to suck, though large planetary defenses kick ass- that Ion cannon and the Death star II's shield were both impressive by any comparison. SW sensors suck on ice- even magnified by probes, they're not as good as even TOS or Farscape sensors.
Babylon 5 ranges are just as bad as SW- and their fighters need to be far far closer than modern combat aircraft for their (very slow moving) weapons to be effective. B5 ships generally dont have shields with really hurts them in a matchup. Starfuries are super agile, but not very fast and their weapons ranges are poor. B5 sensors are moderate by comparison with other genres- good for big stuff (like jump points opening), bad for details.
Farscape ships seem much better on general weapons range with what look to be a slightly better destructive capaity than B5 ships (based on The Peacekeeper Wars footage mainly). Their fighters seem crazy fast with a big punch, though (as mentioned) are not good with physical impacts. Sensors seem good for anything in-system, with the usual loopholes of magnetosphere hiding, etc.
BSG- well...I dont know what they have other than their odd FTL ability- which seems to need re-calculation before jumping again (much like SW does, but worse). Now, if it's TOSBSG, things are a big more balanced- sensors stil suck, but at least they had some kind of capital ship energy weapons and various point-defense blaster things to screen fighters. NUBSG has mainly an anti-missile defense like a ship's Phamanx system- machinegun fire in a cone. NUBSG might be a fair match for Earth ships before the Asgard upgrades...might be a great fighter matchup....though earth ships are obviously more agile than the Galactica....and have atmospheric capability.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd think the longest ranged weapon and the most versitile would go to the Cardassian Dreadnought. Those would rack up a body count in most universes.
As to ranges, Trek seems to have it all over most genres and better destructive yields than SW or B5, with only capital ships of farscape coming close or exceeding. Trek Runabouts have a huge versitility, but certainly not the top FTL speeds, nor as agile as a Starfury (though Runabouts are much more durable). Trek sensors beat all comers, handily.
Stargate ships vary wildly, with the Asgard having sensors comprable to or better than TNG Federation tech, a much faster FTL than anyone and destructive if not varied weapon tech. Ori ships have the best Stargateverse weapons, but it's a one trick pony and only fires from the front- no varied weapons systems shown. Great shields. Both asgard and Ori ships might be prone to transporter attack- as both ship designs depend on a sole controller and fold without that person. No clue on Ori sensor ability. Ancient tech varies depending on it's vintage, with drones being their big weapon of choice- I wonder how those would react against a shield system? Would they hang around, orbiting a ship's shield, waiting for an opening- or do they have a limited energy lifespan? Ancient sensor tech far exceeds even the Federation for range of specific stuff like FTL drives. Wraith ships have a huge array of energy waepons- all the same kind of "bolt" but a ton of them firing at a target for more of a bararge than a single atatck. Wraith fighters might be the most deadly of all universes as they will kamakzie a target or inbound missiles/fighters to protect the main hive ship. Wraith FTL and sensors are both really good (not so good as Federation or Ancient for sensors). No Strgate sensor system matches Federation level for scanning for specific lifeforms at a distance- stuff like Humans within dense foliage or a particular type od microbe from orbit.
Star Wars ranges are pathetic- with capital ships closing to point blank ranges (or at least easy visual range with the human eye- a few kilometers or so tops). Their weapon yields also seem to suck, though large planetary defenses kick ass- that Ion cannon and the Death star II's shield were both impressive by any comparison. SW sensors suck on ice- even magnified by probes, they're not as good as even TOS or Farscape sensors.
Babylon 5 ranges are just as bad as SW- and their fighters need to be far far closer than modern combat aircraft for their (very slow moving) weapons to be effective. B5 ships generally dont have shields with really hurts them in a matchup. Starfuries are super agile, but not very fast and their weapons ranges are poor. B5 sensors are moderate by comparison with other genres- good for big stuff (like jump points opening), bad for details.
Farscape ships seem much better on general weapons range with what look to be a slightly better destructive capaity than B5 ships (based on The Peacekeeper Wars footage mainly). Their fighters seem crazy fast with a big punch, though (as mentioned) are not good with physical impacts. Sensors seem good for anything in-system, with the usual loopholes of magnetosphere hiding, etc.
BSG- well...I dont know what they have other than their odd FTL ability- which seems to need re-calculation before jumping again (much like SW does, but worse). Now, if it's TOSBSG, things are a big more balanced- sensors stil suck, but at least they had some kind of capital ship energy weapons and various point-defense blaster things to screen fighters. NUBSG has mainly an anti-missile defense like a ship's Phamanx system- machinegun fire in a cone. NUBSG might be a fair match for Earth ships before the Asgard upgrades...might be a great fighter matchup....though earth ships are obviously more agile than the Galactica....and have atmospheric capability. [/qb][/QUOTE]
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I should probably warn that I'm pretty sure those B5 tech sites you've linked to are basically fanon.
The dead one is more of an analysis site, I gather, though I don't know how reliable it is. The two sites are/were highly at odds over how to handle data.
quote:Similarly, Star Wars hyperdrive also depends on *precise* adherence to established safe routes, so similarly, an Imperial Star Destroyer in the Milky-way would be just as stranded.
Perhaps. On the one hand, we have TCW wherein the Separatists seize control of hyperspace lanes, cutting off the Republic military (SW:TCW film). On the other hand, we have large vessels like the Malevolence that have to chart a wider course around star clusters than a smaller ship would ("Shadow of Malevolence"[TCW1]) (which brings us back to the Falcon making that infamous run in less than 12 parsecs). And, in "Jedi Crash"[TCW1], we see the result of an uncontrolled jump without a proper course plotted, which at least implies that it can be done.
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: How big is the Star Wars Galaxy anyway? EU always had me thinking its smaller than the Milky Way.
Update: Apparently its 20,000 light years larger than the Milky Way.
That's EU fluff.
The ANH novelisation states that the Empire is a "tiny portion" of the galaxy, and a "tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy". In the Local Group of 40 galaxies, even excluding anything below 10,000 light-years across, the average galaxy size of the remaining 13 is 36,500 light years (an estimate which holds for larger galaxies within 20 million light years).
As for the size of the Empire, even if we assume a 73,000 light year galaxy (36,500 x 2) with low stellar density, a "tiny fraction of" a "section" of such a galaxy couldn't be that large . . . much less than 20,000ly wide, and likely lesser still.
Alternately, we could use Tarkin's boast about the million systems of the Empire (though they often seem to use "system" where Trek-speak would be "planet").
There are an estimated 250,000 stars within a 250 light-year radius of Earth, and 300 million stars within 5,000ly. Given the million systems of the Empire, the size -- were we to assume it was just a million stars, and in a galaxy like ours -- could be up to about 2,000 light years. To have a million potentially habitable systems, a likely minimum would be 12,000 light years. But, given Qui-Gon's statement that "most" of the stars of the SW galaxy have planetary systems, the "likely minimum" should actually be smaller.
Given hyperdrive speeds from the canon, I commonly aim for something more in the 12,000 LY range for the size of the Empire, making it a significant chunk of its modest-sized Galaxy Far Far Away.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: though they often seem to use "system" where Trek-speak would be "planet"
Given that major feature locales of the movies were moons of gas giants, I would say that a planetary "system", composed of the moons of a gas giant, would be a commonplace occurrence. Just like in Firefly. Thus, the Empire could be composed of a million planetary systems rather than a million solar systems.
I wonder if there are other precedents in sci-fi with this type of nomenclature?
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
