Possible Munificent Star Frigate Asteroid Fallacy

[Catalyst75]

I know that the Wiki has accepted the use of this particular calc for the Munificent Star Frigate's hull durability (and durability of other ships scalable to it): https://web.archive.org/web/2016050...ent-class-star-frigate-tanks-asteroids.33638/

But I have to come out and say that the calc feels wrong to me, on account it doesn't use the relative velocity between the asteroid and the frigate to get the energy of the collision.

 

[Antvasima]

You can use the Star Wars verse page and the Knowledgeable Members List to find people to ask to comment here.

 

[Catalyst75]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

You can use the Star Wars verse page and the Knowledgeable Members List to find people to ask to comment here.

^

 

[Catalyst75]

Already sent a link to the thread for one person. Will send more.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Will reply.

 

[Antvasima]

Soldier Blue might be willing to help when he comes back.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

You can inform calc group members to take a look at the calc.

However, there are two other feats which give Star Wars capital ships Large Mountain level+ durability, so I doubt this one is even needed any more.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks for the input.

 

[Catalyst75]

You can inform calc group members to take a look at the calc.
However, there are two other feats which give Star Wars capital ships Large Mountain level+ durability, so I doubt this one is even needed any more.

Which ones specifically? I bring this one up in particular because there is a similar scene with an asteroid colliding with a capital ship in "Empire Strikes Back", where the exact same physics are involved, only in that case the destruction of the ship is caused.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

These two:

User blog:Soldier Blue/Star Wars - Imperial light cruiser turbolasers

^ Though I am thinking of redoing this one.

User blog:Soldier Blue/Star Wars - B-wing total firepower and Quasar Fire durability

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

Will come back for further input.

 

[Catalyst75]

True, but what if there are enough scenes that contradict those specific panels?

 

[Soldier_Blue]

True, but what if there are enough scenes that contradict those specific panels?

Huh?

 

[Catalyst75]

True, but what if there are enough scenes that contradict those specific panels?

Huh?

As in, those feats are used to determine the DC and durability of a number of ships in Star Wars, but there are other scenes which don't show the same results, albeit potentially due to the shifts in medium (i.e. the different portrayals between comics, animated and live action).

For instance, the Imperial Star Destroyer in "Empire Strikes Back" having its entire head decapitated by a single asteroid. Or, well, this:


The Battle Of Lothal Star Wars Clips

Starting at 4:55. The TIE Defender crashed into the Arquitens hard enough to damage the weapons magazine and cause it to uncontrollably collide with an Imperial Star Destroyer's neck, and decapitate it.
You can add it to the reason why I brought up relative velocities when it comes to calculating collisions in space.

 

[ByAsura]

The asteroid that hit the Star Destroyer in the Empire Strikes Back was comparable in size to the ship's bridge. Getting hit by something that size is far greater than the Munificent's feat. It's also referenced that a Star Destroyer's bridge is weaker than the rest of the ship.

• Captain Needa and the Star Destroyer crew rushed to the Avenger's bridge to watch the suicidal approach of the Millennium Falcon, while alarms blared all over the vast Imperial ship. A small freighter could not do much damage if it collided against a Star Destroyer's hull; but if it smashed through the bridge windows, the control deck would be littered with corpses.

Also, the Avenger withstands colliding with an asteroid as large as the Millennium Falcon in the same film. It's implied to have done so without shields. Here's the quote directly from the film script

• The Millennium Falcon speeds through deep space, closely followed by a firing Imperial Star Destroyer. A large asteroid about the same size as the Falcon tumbles rapidly toward the starship. The tiny Falcon banks to avoid the giant asteroid as smaller rocks pelt its surface. Then the small craft roar sunder the asteroid which explodes harmlessly on the hull of the vast Star Destroyer.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

As in, those feats are used to determine the DC and durability of a number of ships in Star Wars, but there are other scenes which don't show the same results, albeit potentially due to the shifts in medium (i.e. the different portrayals between comics, animated and live action).

Yeah. As I noted in this blog, you're going to have inconsistencies across mediums in a verse where there are literally dozens of different writers contributing.

For instance, the Imperial Star Destroyer in "Empire Strikes Back" having its entire head decapitated by a single asteroid.

They were in the asteroid field for a sustained period of time and taking damage continuously. And that asteroid wasn't small nor going slow. Furthermore, the conning tower on a star destroyer is well known to be a weak spot.

In the second issue of the comic Vader - Dark Visions, we see an ISD go right through a small asteroid field at full speed. She suffers damage, but is still very much operational and very much combat capable (only being disabled in the end by Mynocks eating through the power conduits).

Starting at 4:55. The TIE Defender crashed into the Arquitens hard enough to damage the weapons magazine

Yeah. That boggled my mind as well. There is a similar thing in the Poe Dameron comics as well. I just chalked these two up to inconsistency. Keep in mind that in the previous season's finale, we see some Mandalorians damaging a gravity well projector on a capital ship with just handheld blasters and backpack rockets, having a struggle with imperial troops while doing so. This show places more emphasis on such spectacles with struggle than consistency.

Note: Not throwing shade at the show or anything. I still love it and hold it on par with The Clone Wars.

We see an Arquitens get hit by numerous skyscraper-sized asteroid chunks in the Kieron Gillen Vader comic series (impacts across the hull and seemingly much more devastating than that TIE Defender impact) but she was still operational and managed to get to an Imperial shipyard for inspection and repair. There is also the Carrion Spike's feat of ramming and destroying an orbital prison facility in the Poe Dameron comic, but coming out unscathed. The Arquitens is far larger and should be more durable.

and cause it to uncontrollably collide with an Imperial Star Destroyer's neck, and decapitate it

^ This event I just chalk up to two things:

1. Filoni and his animation team wanting to make a crazy spectacle. I'll admit, it was indeed quite a sight. I actually laughed a little when I saw it for the first time.

2. It's a trope in fiction to have two things made of the same materials damaging each other. One notable example that comes to mind is from Yu Yu Hakusho where we see a robot (made of some special material) that is impervious to attacks from Hiei and Kurama damaging itself with a blow that didn't seem especially powerful. We know that Arquitens-class light cruisers are built with the same kind of armour plating as ISDs. Of course the animators are going to make an Arquitens cripple an ISD. I would also like to add that the Arquitens collided with the ISD's conning tower - a known weak spot. In the second issue of Star War Adventures, we see a Raider-class corvette (much smaller than the Arquitens, but certainly not a small ship) ram into an Imperial II-class star destroyer's prow at full speed, destroying itself. But the impact does negligible damage to the ISD, with those on board even stating that they barely felt the impact.

 

[ByAsura]

@Soldier Actually, the Carrion Spike feat was done with laser cannons.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

@Soldier Actually, the Carrion Spike feat was done with laser cannons.

I'm not talking about that one.

There is another arc where Poe goes to meet Grakkus the Hutt at some old prison facility. The Carrion Spike destroys that facility by straight up flying right through it and coming out the other side.

 

[ByAsura]

Ok. I might calc that feat, as it could yield some impressive results.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Ok. I might calc that feat, as it could yield some impressive results.

How would you calc what is basically a 150 metre long spear flying through a space station?

It happens in Poe Dameron Issue 6, by the way.

 

[ByAsura]

I tried, but I can't.

 

[Catalyst75]

They were in the asteroid field for a sustained period of time and taking damage continuously. And that asteroid wasn't small nor going slow. Furthermore, the conning tower on a star destroyer is well known to be a weak spot.

It wasn't small or slow, but it speed wasn't astronomical, either. About just over 1 km/s relative to the Star Destroyer, just by an on-sight estimate. Which is part of the reason for my original post. The calc used to determine Munificent hull durability, I feel, uses a painfully flawed method to get its numbers, rather than relative velocities between the Munificent and the asteroid during the actual scene of collision.

The same principle can be used for the "Empire Strikes Back" and the Battle of Lothal instances. Use the masses of the ships paired with relative velocity to determine collision energy.

 

[Antvasima]

I will unsubscribe due to time constraints. You can send me a message later if you need my help.

 

[ByAsura]

The asteroid appearing to move at 1 km/s or slower is just cinematic timing. Asteroids in space—actually, just in general—tend to move far faster than that value. Imagine trying to spot an asteroid moving at 370 km/s. We'd just see an indecipherable blur.

I used the mass of the asteroid based on the fact that it's "about" the same size as the Millennium Falcon, I don't need to compare it to the Avenger, which weighs god knows how much. Also, it cleared a lot of space in a very short time, potentially beyond the weapons range of an Imperial II Class Star Destroyer, so 25 km/s isn't contradictory.

 

[Catalyst75]

The asteroid appearing to move at 1 km/s or slower is just cinematic timing. Asteroids in space—actually, just in general—tend to move far faster than that value.' Imagine trying to spot an asteroid moving at 370 km/s. We'd just see an indecipherable blur.'
I used the mass of the asteroid based on the fact that it's "about" the same size as the Millennium Falcon, I don't need to compare it to the Avenger, which weighs god knows how much. Also, it cleared a lot of space in a very short time, potentially beyond the weapons range of an Imperial II Class Star Destroyer, so 25 km/s isn't contradictory.

Except you can't chalk it up to "cinematic timing" and dismiss it. Relative velocity is what you'd use to get an accurate measurement of what happened on-screen, rather than making blind assumptions.

Relative velocity is basic physics. Are you in a ship seeking to dock with a large asteroid in the Belt? Not only do you need to know the orbital periods of the asteroid itself, but you have to match speed with the asteroid . I.e. Make the relative velocities between you and the asteroid equal to 0 m/s.

What makes the most sense for "Empire Strikes Back" is to consider what's on-screen to be the relative velocities between the objects on-screen.

 

[ByAsura]

They're not based on blind assumptions, it's based on the fact that they're capable of traveling to one planet from another, so I'm not just dismissing it with visuals. Also, it would be extremely difficult to animate or create an exactly accurate asteroid collision with physics in mind.

Relative velocity doesn't really matter here, since the ships aren't matching the asteroids speed, just being pelted by them. It's like saying you need to match the speed of a 60 km/h tennis ball to get hit by it, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning for this point.

Again, it covered the weapons range of a Star Destroyer in seconds, so 25 km/s makes sense.

 

[Catalyst75]

Relative velocity doesn't really matter here, since the ships aren't matching the asteroids speed, just being pelted by them. It's like saying you need to match the speed of a 60 km/h tennis ball to get hit by it, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning for this point.

You misunderstand my meaning. Determining relative velocity between two different objects is how you determine the kinetic energy upon the collision between two such objects. Looking at the visuals on-screen shows that the asteroid wasn't hurtling at the Star Destroyer at double-digit kilometers per second. I don't like the idea that you just tack on an arbitrary number to the asteroid's velocity because "reasons".

 

[ByAsura]

Well, visuals don't always represent what actually happens. If that asteroid was only moving at 10 m/s, it would be obliterated by the planet's atmosphere after it took years to get there.

Again, it makes sense for the asteroid that struck the Avenger (the one that wasn't destroyed) to be in that speed range. The average weapons range of a Star Destroyer is hundreds of kilometers, and this was well out. Imagine trying to make a Star Destroyer look super far away from another ship when they're using physical models.

 

[Catalyst75]

And without a known velocity for said asteroid relative to the Star Destroyer (though the relative velocity must be slow enough for human perception to be able to react to it and avoid it), the feat could likely not be as impactful as what happened to the Star Destroyer that got its entire command tower vaporized with direct impact.

Because I'm not buying your whole "don't believe your eyes and ears" argument. The visuals come from the movie, and should still be taken into consideration rather than dismissed.

 

[ByAsura]

The asteroid that struck the command tower was, as I said before, significantly larger than this asteroid. Going by these schematics, the asteroid was about 100 meters long with roughtly 10 times the volume (using the formula of an ellipsoid) of the one that hit Grievous' Munificent-class.

The visuals may not reflect what I'm saying, but the distance certainly does. In Star Wars, crafts move at sub-light speeds in space, yet they're completely visible. For example, the Carrion Spike is capable of covering a parsec in a matter of decades, and the Falcon is comparable. This already debunks using visuals alone.

 

[Catalyst75]

...You really do not know how relative frames of reference work, do you? Or that, say, we're seeing these ships at sub-light speed (which would include any speed below speed of light) because our perspective of events is moving right alongside the ships?

Furthermore, long-distance travel isn't relevant to the scenes involving asteroid collisions, where the visuals of the scenes themselves are relevant and should be considered.

 

[ByAsura]

The shots are often stationary while the Millennium Falcon travels, so no, the observer's perspective is not travelling at the same speed as the Falcon. For example, the Avenger's attack on the Falcon in The Empire Strikes Back. Again, the Carrion Spike can travel a parsec in 50 years, this translates to 6.5% light speed.

It seems you misunderstood entirely. The speed of objects in Star Wars isn't consistent with their actual speed (TIE Fighters have a top speed of over 1000 km/h in an atmosphere), and no, they shouldn't just be dropped because you consider them "irrelevant". The visuals 100% matter when the distance is not consistent either.

 

[Catalyst75]

A parsec in 50 years is supposed to be impressive...how?

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/acceleratio

If you had a space-ship accelerating at a constant 1 G for 23 days, you'd reach 6.5% light-speed easy. Then you could literally drift through space the rest of the way and cover a parsec in roughly the same time. An 18 hour burn at only 30.7 Gs would reach that same speed.

Yet Star Wars likes to throw around Gs in the thousands for the max acceleration of its ships, all of which could hit those speeds in much less than an hour, and would likely still have enough fuel to continue accelerating. Hell, the First Order's pursuit of the Resistance fleet during The Last Jedi lasted roughly 18 hours, and would have required all ships involved to be continually accelerating (until their fuel ran out in the case of the Resistance).

I once did an estimate based on on-screen visuals, got an estimated acceleration of 117.26 Gs, and ended up with these number: 74,521,150 m/s, or 0.248 c.

If I used an estimated based on Legends numbers for Mon Cal Cruiser acceleration, constant max acceleration over 18 hours would easily reach over 99% light-speed, and time dilation would kick in hard-core.

To make a long story short, the only way for the Carrion Spike to be restricted to a timeline of 50 years to cross one parsec in real space would be if it spent all its fuel accelerating to 6.5% light-speed with its sublight engines and drifted the rest of the way.

When it comes to the kinetic energy exchanged when two objects collide, what matters most is the difference in velocities relative to each other. E.g. If you are on a ship moving 30 m/s through space, and observe a second ship beside you moving in the exact same direction at 31 m/s, the second would only appear to be moving 1 m/s from your perspective.


You want to calculate the energy of a collision in space? You find the velocity of both objects, calculate their respective kinetic energies, the differences between their velocities depending on the angle of the collision, and work from there.

You do not dismiss on-screen visuals due to arbitrarily applying "cinematic timing" to it. You use what you see on-screen.

That is all I am suggesting. That someone be willing to re-calculate the Munificent asteroid scene while taking relative velocity into account.

 

[ByAsura]

In real-life it takes this kind of time. In Star Wars, it takes crafts minutes to reach top speed generally, not hours because their methods of acceleration are far more advanced. Also, I'm like 90% sure the comment refers only to its top speed, not including stops for time or fuel, and it makes no sense for them to leave a Capital ship adrift in space and they never do this in Star Wars.

The Resistance Fleet were depleting fuel so quickly because of their continual hyperspace jumps, constant damage from the Star Destroyers, and insufficient supplies after they were intercepted by the First Order on D'Qar. Also, it didn't take the whole 18 hour chase to accelerate.

I know what relative velocity is, but it's just so irrelevant here. Also the entire calc is based on the speed of the Munificent, not the asteroids, but anyone can tell they were moving at the same speed because of relative velocity.

The weight and speed of the Munificent is unknown, so that's going to be quite a problem.

I've already explained this, I'm not just dismissing it. Also, the Munificent appeared very slow moving, but even in an atmosphere it moves faster, so yes, this is cinematic timing. Every spacebattle in Star Wars uses cinematic timing so you can actually see it in detail.

It won't really change anything, regardless, as there's still supporting feats in this range. However, I'll try anyway since the original seems to be poorly done.

 

[Catalyst75]

At least we can agree the original Munificent calc was a painfully shoddy job.

But as far as "top speed" goes in sci-fi, there is, realistically, only top acceleration speed. Once you start accelerating i.e. whenever you have the engines turned on, there's no drag to slow you down. You just keep on going faster at the same rate of acceleration until you switch the engines off.

Star Wars may "ignore physics" in some respect, but every sci-fi bends or ignores physics in some form or another. That shouldn't exempt them from being subjected to physics where applicable.

 

[ByAsura]

It was very bad, and I'll try to redo it.

Still, crafts accelerate to these speeds in minutes, not days or hours, in Star Wars.

 

[Catalyst75]

It was very bad, and I'll try to redo it.
Still, crafts accelerate to these speeds in minutes, not days or hours, in Star Wars.

I pointed that out for a reason. Unless there is something that keeps ships from accelerating to speeds any faster than that in normal space, there's no reason for their max velocity to be capped at that.