There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JuliaBlaschke Lincoln
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    I’m surprised you rated The Rise of Skywalker so highly. My 2 adult children both said it was bad.

    • #1
  2. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Spoilers! IF you plan to see Star Wars, hold off on this podcast until after you’ve seen the movie.

    • #2
  3. Jim Wright Inactive
    Jim Wright
    @JimW

    I’ve had friends across the spectrum on the new Star Wars, from adoration to loathing. Most “casual viewers” I’ve talked to loved it.

    I’m more a Star Trek guy, so I’ll probably give it a shot. JJ’s reboots of Trek aren’t great, but they’re generally fun.

    • #3
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I haven’t seen any of the Star Wars “sequels,” and probably never will.  But I would just like to point out that if the Forest Moon of Endor has Earth-like gravity, then Endor itself must have bone-crushing gravity or it’s just crap.

    Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a similar problem.  Bajor supposedly had like a dozen moons, and they all seemed to have Earth-like gravity and usually atmosphere too.  But so did Bajor.  Which is utter crap.

    • #4
  5. Merrijane Inactive
    Merrijane
    @Merrijane

    I literally said to my family, I think General Hux is a stand-in for Rian Johnson before listening to this podcast. And we discussed how the movie completely ignored the previous movie to the point that you really didn’t need to see it to understand the story. 

    • #5
  6. Merrijane Inactive
    Merrijane
    @Merrijane

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I haven’t seen any of the Star Wars “sequels,” and probably never will. But I would just like to point out that if the Forest Moon of Endor has Earth-like gravity, then Endor itself must have bone-crushing gravity or it’s just crap.

    Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a similar problem. Bajor supposedly had like a dozen moons, and they all seemed to have Earth-like gravity and usually atmosphere too. But so did Bajor. Which is utter crap.

    And this is only one of many, many scientifically ridiculous occurrences. I kept groaning to the point my son told me to stop ruining it for him. 

    • #6
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Merrijane (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I haven’t seen any of the Star Wars “sequels,” and probably never will. But I would just like to point out that if the Forest Moon of Endor has Earth-like gravity, then Endor itself must have bone-crushing gravity or it’s just crap.

    Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a similar problem. Bajor supposedly had like a dozen moons, and they all seemed to have Earth-like gravity and usually atmosphere too. But so did Bajor. Which is utter crap.

    And this is only one of many, many scientifically ridiculous occurrences. I kept groaning to the point my son told me to stop ruining it for him.

    I assume you’re not referring to DS9, but to stuff crap in the Star Wars movie such as the main planet Endor supposedly having gravity and atmosphere like one of its moons?

    • #7
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    You guys never heard of sub-space – i.e., hyperspace – radio?

    More Star Trek you must watch!

    • #8
  9. Merrijane Inactive
    Merrijane
    @Merrijane

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I assume you’re not referring to DS9, but to stuff crap in the Star Wars movie such as the main planet Endor supposedly having gravity and atmosphere like one of its moons?

    Yes. Like the Death Star (small moon size) crashes on a planet with breathable atmosphere but doesn’t burn up on entry and also doesn’t cause a cataclysm that wipes out all life on the planet. 

    • #9
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Merrijane (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I assume you’re not referring to DS9, but to stuff crap in the Star Wars movie such as the main planet Endor supposedly having gravity and atmosphere like one of its moons?

    Yes. Like the Death Star (small moon size) crashes on a planet with breathable atmosphere but doesn’t burn up on entry and also doesn’t cause a cataclysm that wipes out all life on the planet.

    Hmm, well a Death Star is mostly hollow.  It might have a lot of metal in its shell etc, but isn’t likely to have anything like the total mass of a small moon.

    A bigger issue might be the power source etc.  If it was something like matter/anti-matter as in Star Trek, the collision should likely destroy both ship and planet, if there is a significant amount of anti-matter aboard for power.

    In Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, the self-destruct of the Enterprise shouldn’t have really left anything to burn up in the planet’s atmosphere, once the antimatter exploded.

    • #10
  11. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Hmm, well a Death Star is mostly hollow. It might have a lot of metal in its shell etc, but isn’t likely to have anything like the total mass of a small moon.

    A bigger issue might be the power source etc. If it was something like matter/anti-matter as in Star Trek, the collision should likely destroy both ship and planet, if there is a significant amount of anti-matter aboard for power.

    In Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, the self-destruct of the Enterprise shouldn’t have really left anything to burn up in the planet’s atmosphere, once the antimatter exploded.

    The non-canon DS9 novel Time’s Enemy actually addressed this, saying that the self-destruct sequence is designed to detonate the warp core in a specific, safe fashion just in case there are friendly ships around.

    • #11
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Retcon nonsense.  Antimatter can’t be detonated safely.  IT’S ANTIMATTER.

    But there are all kinds of inconsistencies through all the series-es, of course.  For example, in an actual DS9 episode there was talk of increasing the maximum speed of a ship involved with trying to re-ignite a star, to like warp 9.7 or 9.9 I think, so they could escape if there was a problem.  But of course, no natural phenomenon – including a nova or super-nova – can exceed the speed of light.  So most likely they would be able to escape without even using Warp 1.

     

    • #12
  13. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    It wasn’t a retcon – it was a plot point. There was a Jem’Hadar vessel that they needed to destroy, but it was too close to the wormhole while the wormhole was unstable. So they needed to find a way to activate the self-destruct so the wormhole wouldn’t be destroyed as well.

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    • #13
  14. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    It wasn’t a retcon – it was a plot point. There was a Jem’Hadar vessel that they needed to destroy, but it was too close to the wormhole while the wormhole was unstable. So they needed to find a way to activate the self-destruct so the wormhole wouldn’t be destroyed as well.

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    If you dump antimatter into the vacuum of space, it won’t explode at all, except for a relatively small burst of energy each time a particle of normal matter bumps into it and gets converted to energy.

    • #14
  15. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    Taras (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    If you dump antimatter into the vacuum of space, it won’t explode at all, except for a relatively small burst of energy each time a particle of normal matter bumps into it and gets converted to energy.

    Of course, and that’s probably what the author had in mind. But you’d need to eject it forcefully to get it away from the ship. If you just released the containment fields as described, it would immediately interact with the rest of the matter in Engineering.

    • #15
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    If you dump antimatter into the vacuum of space, it won’t explode at all, except for a relatively small burst of energy each time a particle of normal matter bumps into it and gets converted to energy.

    Of course, and that’s probably what the author had in mind. But you’d need to eject it forcefully to get it away from the ship. If you just released the containment fields as described, it would immediately interact with the rest of the matter in Engineering.

    And it would have to be somehow ejected without any of the containment mechanisms, etc.  Because once the (magnetic?) containment fields fail, the antimatter would explode from coming into contact with the physical parts of the containment mechanisms.

    But really, isn’t the simplest and most effect self-destruct just to remove the containment fields?

    Just leaving a bunch of antimatter floating in space, seems very irresponsible.  Even those nearby theoretical friendly ships could easily collide with it.

    • #16
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    If you dump antimatter into the vacuum of space, it won’t explode at all, except for a relatively small burst of energy each time a particle of normal matter bumps into it and gets converted to energy.

    Of course, and that’s probably what the author had in mind. But you’d need to eject it forcefully to get it away from the ship. If you just released the containment fields as described, it would immediately interact with the rest of the matter in Engineering.

    And it would have to be somehow ejected without any of the containment mechanisms, etc. Because once the (magnetic?) containment fields fail, the antimatter would explode from coming into contact with the physical parts of the containment mechanisms.

    But really, isn’t the simplest and most effect self-destruct just to remove the containment fields?

    Just leaving a bunch of antimatter floating in space, seems very irresponsible. Even those nearby theoretical friendly ships could easily collide with it.

    Space is very, very big and even the largest ship imagined is very, very small.  

    If you want to look at an eye-popping number, calculate the volume of a sphere whose radius is the distance, tiny by astronomical standards, from the Earth to the Sun.

    N.B.:  It’s unlikely a matter-antimatter explosion in space will  consume all the antimatter.

    • #17
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Daniel Sterman (View Comment):

    There’s technobabble nonsense about “releasing the containment fields around the reaction mass”, but it’s not hard to think of three or four plausible ways you could do it. After all, the antimatter is inside a reaction chamber that’s explicitly designed to contain it. The chamber could be ejected from the ship prior to self-destruct, or it could deliberately react with all of the remaining antimatter so there’s none left during the explosion (and use that to fuel the actual explosion), and so on.

    If you dump antimatter into the vacuum of space, it won’t explode at all, except for a relatively small burst of energy each time a particle of normal matter bumps into it and gets converted to energy.

    Of course, and that’s probably what the author had in mind. But you’d need to eject it forcefully to get it away from the ship. If you just released the containment fields as described, it would immediately interact with the rest of the matter in Engineering.

    And it would have to be somehow ejected without any of the containment mechanisms, etc. Because once the (magnetic?) containment fields fail, the antimatter would explode from coming into contact with the physical parts of the containment mechanisms.

    But really, isn’t the simplest and most effect self-destruct just to remove the containment fields?

    Just leaving a bunch of antimatter floating in space, seems very irresponsible. Even those nearby theoretical friendly ships could easily collide with it.

    Space is very, very big and even the largest ship imagined is very, very small.

    If you want to look at an eye-popping number, calculate the volume of a sphere whose radius is the distance, tiny by astronomical standards, from the Earth to the Sun.

    N.B.: It’s unlikely a matter-antimatter explosion in space will consume all the antimatter.

    Yes but if you want to avoid damaging nearby friendly ships, don’t eject the antimatter.

    • #18
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    And the solar wind – which consists of particles – near any star would probably keep antimatter exploding “until the cows come home.”

    • #19
  20. Daniel Sterman Inactive
    Daniel Sterman
    @DanielSterman

    At which point I assume the cows would explode too?

    • #20
  21. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And the solar wind – which consists of particles – near any star would probably keep antimatter exploding “until the cows come home.”

    The overall result would probably be something like a faint glow.  Even the solar wind is a hard vacuum, by terrestrial standards.

    • #21
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    But not by antimatter standards.  The equation for energy released by matter-antimatter is… rather high.  Which is why you can power warp engines and shields and stuff from it.  I suspect it would be more than a “glow,” and much more than a “glow” near any planetary body whose atmosphere might be “nonexistent” to US at 200 miles or whatever, but there’s enough to slow down orbiting capsules and satellites, and enough to make a fine display with antimatter.

    • #22
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.