Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 25 guests

What, no planet kablooey?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by Weird Harold   » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:28 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

cthia wrote:I didn't miss your post either. And I enjoyed a blast of a laugh from the past.


As long as we're talking about Marvin, he features in the ending of Duck Dodgers in the 24th and 1/2 Century where Duck Dodgers fires his "Acme Destructo Co" secret weapon at the same time as Marvin fires his "Martian Matomic Masher" to reduce Planet X to a mere fragment that is (literally) not big enough for the both of them.

https://vimeo.com/64344734 (skip to 6:05 for the finale.)
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by cthia   » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:20 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12894
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Honorverse level destruction.

Do forgive me, but I am still wasting time on these darn tropes -- lovely tropes.

Glassing. I had never heard of the term glassing.
In some science-fiction, it is impractical to transport enough ground troops to invade a planet, or The Empire simply wants to make a statement. So they bombard a planet with a bunch of nukes or large kinetics, or Energy Weapons of some sort. This bombardment may be limited to a small geographical area but more often it is a general assault that wipes out most civilization if not all life on the planet.

A term frequently used in relation to this trope is "glassing," which originally referred to the bombardment being intense enough to cause the soil to vitrify, or melt into volcanic glass.

Now this is certainly something that SDs can do in the Honorverse -- glass a planet. This would be rather apt for Darius once it's found. "Burn baby, burn. Disco inferno!..."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... ombardment

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by Grashtel   » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:08 am

Grashtel
Captain of the List

Posts: 449
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:59 am

cthia wrote:Honorverse level destruction.

Do forgive me, but I am still wasting time on these darn tropes -- lovely tropes.

TvTropes will ruin your life. Good luck getting away from the site for any length of time anytime soon, just try to remember to eat and sleep properly. Oh and relevant XKCD (not that XKCD is not addictive if its style of humor works for you)
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by cralkhi   » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:10 am

cralkhi
Captain of the List

Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:27 am

cthia wrote:
Daryl wrote:Planets were destroyed to create Ringworld, then the star and ring accelerated to fractional C to escape the core explosion.
Same for Dyson Sphere stories. There was another involving a steerable neutron star, but I can't remember the title. Venging had aliens preempting rivals by using antimatter needles to shatter the Earth's core.

Can anyone remember the story of which Daryl speaks regarding the steerable neutron star?


One appears in "Ring" by Stephen Baxter. It's a slower-than-light weapon though, IIRC.

That book (and series) also includes the starbreaker, a weapon which is basically a gravity laser (a beam of gravitational waves) capable of wrecking planetary surfaces up to destroying planets (and maybe stars too).


And


(more spoilery)

an arrangement of galaxies used to gravitationally shake apart a massive spacetime construct in a war spanning millions or billions of years

EDIT: The book has a lot of cool ideas, but definitely suffers from the standard Stephen Baxter pointlessly-depressing thing (though not as badly as some of his books).
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by cthia   » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:53 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12894
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

My wife is watching Star Trek the movie (2009) for the first time. I just witnessed the destruction of Vulcan -- Spock's home world, by an energy beam from a rogue Romulan vessel that created a black hole at the core of the planet that consumed it.

It was an impressive scene and special effects.

And a supernova destroyed Romulus, also an impressive scene -- which fueled the Romulan antagonist in the movie.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by munroburton   » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:01 pm

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:16 am
Location: Scotland

cthia wrote:My wife is watching Star Trek the movie (2009) for the first time. I just witnessed the destruction of Vulcan -- Spock's home world, by an energy beam from a rogue Romulan vessel that created a black hole at the core of the planet that consumed it.

It was an impressive scene and special effects.

And a supernova destroyed Romulus, also an impressive scene -- which fueled the Romulan antagonist in the movie.


You need to watch it a bit more closely. The energy beam was essentially a mining drill to create a shaft to the core(guess Vulcan was tectonically inert, eh?), then Nerus dropped a sample of 'red matter' down the shaft.

Don't ask me why a quantity of red matter on Vulcan's surface wouldn't have been enough to do the same thing.

Move along, no science to see here. :lol:
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by Theemile   » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:39 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4159
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

munroburton wrote:
You need to watch it a bit more closely. The energy beam was essentially a mining drill to create a shaft to the core(guess Vulcan was tectonically inert, eh?), then Nerus dropped a sample of 'red matter' down the shaft.

Don't ask me why a quantity of red matter on Vulcan's surface wouldn't have been enough to do the same thing.

Move along, no science to see here. :lol:


I remember an interview with Ronald Moore (BSG/STNG) and he mentioned parts of scripts where some writers had written something to the effect "He <teched> the <tech>" where what was said really didn't matter cause they were making the whole thing up, and "sciency" words could be filled in later to make the scene make sense -ish.

So in Star Trek, the science is definitely a distant second to the plot.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by noblehunter   » Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:05 pm

noblehunter
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:49 pm

Theemile wrote:
I remember an interview with Ronald Moore (BSG/STNG) and he mentioned parts of scripts where some writers had written something to the effect "He <teched> the <tech>" where what was said really didn't matter cause they were making the whole thing up, and "sciency" words could be filled in later to make the scene make sense -ish.

So in Star Trek, the science is definitely a distant second to the plot.

I recall hearing somewhere (so of dubious provenance) that if the actors then ad-libbed the technobabble, they get tiny royalties for the reruns because they partially "wrote" the line. It sounds even more dubious when I write it.

As for the red matter in the core, it clearly needs to be subject to a certain amount of pressure (and/or heat) before it turns into a black hole. Or leaving it on the surface risks unexpected gravitational effects that would fling it into space before the planet is destroyed.

Any sufficiently vague technobabble can be fan-wanked into reasonableness.
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by saber964   » Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:00 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

Theemile wrote:
munroburton wrote:
You need to watch it a bit more closely. The energy beam was essentially a mining drill to create a shaft to the core(guess Vulcan was tectonically inert, eh?), then Nerus dropped a sample of 'red matter' down the shaft.

Don't ask me why a quantity of red matter on Vulcan's surface wouldn't have been enough to do the same thing.

Move along, no science to see here. :lol:


I remember an interview with Ronald Moore (BSG/STNG) and he mentioned parts of scripts where some writers had written something to the effect "He <teched> the <tech>" where what was said really didn't matter cause they were making the whole thing up, and "sciency" words could be filled in later to make the scene make sense -ish.

So in Star Trek, the science is definitely a distant second to the plot.



Why do you think they switched from lithium to dilithium early in ST:TOS. Because lithium exists and has known scientific properties.
Top
Re: What, no planet kablooey?
Post by Daryl   » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:26 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3175
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Similar to women's makeup & youthful skin treatments. The ads and bottle descriptions are full of nonsense made up pseudo scientific terms. At least in Avator they called it unobtainium in a sly dig at themselves.
Top

Return to Honorverse