Twin Agate Dragons
Mongoose
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but I have no idea what exactly a parsec is.
What exactly is a parsec?
- Thread starter Twin Agate Dragons
- Start date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
For us, it's a unit of distance equal to 3.26 light years, and is based on the distance of the earth's orbit around the sun (therefore, an alien race using the same definition would come up with a different distance for their parsecs, if their planet wasn't orbiting at the same distance that earth orbits around the sun)
It's defined by parallax: Hold your finger up near your face, and close your left eye, then close your right eye. See how it looks like it changes position relative to the background behind it? That's parallax. Parallax is defined by an angle, and a parsec is a parallax of one arc second - hence, "parsec". It's easier to visualise with a diagram, the one on the wiki page does a pretty good job.
For us, it's a unit of distance equal to 3.26 light years, and is based on the distance of the earth's orbit around the sun (therefore, an alien race using the same definition would come up with a different distance for their parsecs, if their planet wasn't orbiting at the same distance that earth orbits around the sun)
It's defined by parallax: Hold your finger up near your face, and close your left eye, then close your right eye. See how it looks like it changes position relative to the background behind it? That's parallax. Parallax is defined by an angle, and a parsec is a parallax of one arc second - hence, "parsec". It's easier to visualise with a diagram, the one on the wiki page does a pretty good job.
Cleon the Mad
Mongoose
This is pretty off topic, but you do know that Han Solo did the Kessel Run in 12 parsec's right? 
(Sorry had to..just always found it amusing that they used a measure for distance as if it was a measure of time. Although I did hear they handwaved it to later mean he found some short cut and managed to do the run in 12 parsecs, most people take the long way and it's a longer distance..but still...at the time it was pretty amusing)
(Sorry had to..just always found it amusing that they used a measure for distance as if it was a measure of time. Although I did hear they handwaved it to later mean he found some short cut and managed to do the run in 12 parsecs, most people take the long way and it's a longer distance..but still...at the time it was pretty amusing)
lastbesthope
Mongoose
The Chef said:
The parsec is a unit of distance, since the Kessel run involved moving it is not completely incorrect to measure it in distance, the story I've heard from various sources is that the falcon being faster than most ships was able to take some shortcuts nearer black holes and so forth and so complete the run in a lesser distance than other ships.
LBH
andrew boulton
Mongoose
At J2, Regina to Aramis is 13 parsecs. At J3, it's 12.
That Blasted Samophlange
Mongoose
I've always figured that 'making the kessel run in under 12 parsecs' was Han boasting about how he found a shorter route that what is normally taken. See, in Star Wars, you have to plot a hyperspace course, so if you are really good at that you can shave time off you trip by making it a shorter route.Cleon the Mad said:This is pretty off topic, but you do know that Han Solo did the Kessel Run in 12 parsec's right?
(Sorry had to..just always found it amusing that they used a measure for distance as if it was a measure of time. Although I did hear they handwaved it to later mean he found some short cut and managed to do the run in 12 parsecs, most people take the long way and it's a longer distance..but still...at the time it was pretty amusing)
Seems logical to me. Now, as to Lucas not being able to write, I disagree. Writing is for the most part fine, however, he does have some issues with directing. Look at Empire - it wasn't directed by him (Irvin Kershner directed it) and most people find this the best one of the lot.
But that is a topic for another thread.
A parsec is a unit of distance, not of time, which makes Han's boasting nonsensical.That Blasted Samophlange said:
While it is true that if you can plot a tighter course that decreases the distance you have to travel, you will arrive sooner than going on a longer route. But strictly speaking, that doesn't mean you're travelling faster. Let's take a real world example. You have a car, and you want to get to the shops. There are two routes, one is longer than the other. Assuming you drive at the exact same speed (or to put it another way, nothing about the routes changes your engine performance in any way, shape or form), the shorter route will mean you will arrive at the shops sooner than you would by going on the longer route. Are you going 'faster' though? Perhaps from a figurative point of view, you are but your engine's speed hasn't actually changed - you just used a short cut.
The problem with that scene, and the explanation that was introduced in one of the Han Solo books from the SW EU, is that Obi-wan in the cantina pointedly asks if the Millenium Falcon is a fast ship, which is when Han boasts about making the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. To return to the real world example above, that would be like a passenger asking you how fast your car is, and you replying "Well I got to the shops in less than 10 km". This is meaningless, because the shorter route may be under 10 km, but travelling down it doesn't have any implications as to how fast your car actually performs. Similarly, having done the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs may be quite an achievement, but it doesn't actually answer Obi-wan's question.
At best, Han was possibly talking about the Falcon's superior navigational systems that allows it to find 'short cuts' like his Kessel Run trick. But that scene is still a gaffe for the simple reason Obi-wan was talking speed, especially in the context of getting from Tattooine to Alderaan as quickly as possible, and Han replies with distance... which is information that hardly even relates to Obi-wan's concern. The explanation given over the Kessel Run was interesting, but it is something that can only really relate to that Maw area of space adjacent to Kessel. When being asked how fast can the Falcon get from Tattooine to Alderaan, why bring up the Kessel Run as a noted achievement when that was done under unusual circumstances to begin with?
To top it off, later in the film at docking bay 94, Han boasts "She's make point 5 past light speed" in reply to Luke's disbelief at the 'pile of junk' before his eyes. The question that arises though, is why didn't Han simply say that to Obi-wan back at the Cantina?
Lucas didn't write Empire either. In fact, of all the SW films, he had the least amount of involvement on Empire, in contrast to the other five. Star Wars (now known as Episode IV, or A New Hope) was written and directed by Lucas, but he was quite young and of course, wasn't the big success he soon would be with SW's release. He had a lot of help from his friends whom he went to for advice, not to mention his wife for editing.
Return of the Jedi is when Lucas began to exert more control over the franchise, and people like Gary Kurtz (the overlooked and unsung contributor to Star Wars) wasn't involved at all. Plus, I think he had split with his wife at that point as well. Still, Jedi is a good film, but it's number one flaw is: Ewoks. When the original idea was going to Chewie's home planet. :!:
Then you have the prequels. While I'm not a prequel hater, I can't say that I'm in love with them. I find TPM at best dull, at worst godawful (Jar Jar!), while AOTC is a good film in the body of a poor one (great ideas, poor execution, basically). ROTS is the best of the prequel trilogy, and closest in feel to the original films, but it still suffers from prequel-itis.
I congratulate Lucas for making films that have provided me with countless hours of entertainment, but I'm not gonna kiss his butt over it - the prequels especially could have been so much better.
Yeah, that is really priceless.AdrianH said:
It's pretty simple - whoever wrote the SW script used a distance measurement for time instead, and got it wrong. The ret-con came later.
All the mental gymnastics involved in trying to turn a distance measurement into a time measurement is about as futile as all the mental gymnastics involved in trying to make sense of the parts of the OTU that make no sense.
All the mental gymnastics involved in trying to turn a distance measurement into a time measurement is about as futile as all the mental gymnastics involved in trying to make sense of the parts of the OTU that make no sense.
Stofsk said:
Anything that people argue about
. All the "classic flamewars" - from unrealistic planets, to economics that don't work, to fleets that can't be funded and sustained, to big ship/small ship arguments, near-c rocks, empty hex jumps, and so on. All of these stem from a flawed understanding of facts, poor design decisions, and authors not thinking things through properly when they first wrote them. The fundamental premise is wrong, so trying to get it to work without first correcting the erroneous premise is a waste of time.
Gruffty the Hiver
Banded Mongoose
In Traveller terms, one hex is 3.26 ly from *flat edge to flat edge*.EDG said:
This is almost on topic, and follows from something Rust just said.
Would it not be more sensible for a starship crews in traveller to go into cryosleep during every jump?
a week is a long time, and crew are taking up precious resources like air, food, etc. Would it not be prudent to freeze everyone?
Has this been raised before?
Chef
Would it not be more sensible for a starship crews in traveller to go into cryosleep during every jump?
a week is a long time, and crew are taking up precious resources like air, food, etc. Would it not be prudent to freeze everyone?
Has this been raised before?
Chef
Twin Agate Dragons
Mongoose
So far, so good, and kudos to Grufty for answering my next question before I asked it.
Yep, a number of times.The Chef said:
In the early days of Traveller travelling in a low berth was rather dange-
rous, and no sane crew member would have done it on a regular base
- his chance to survive more than a year on his job would have been ve-
ry slim.
With later versions of Traveller, travelling in a low berth became a little
less dangerous, but even with Mongoose Traveller there is still a risk a
typical crew member would hardly be willing to take.
There are a number of other points, from the need for maintenance on
the ship to the care for passengers, but in my view the risks of "travel-
ling low" pretty much killed the entire concept of a crew in low berths du-
ring jumps for Traveller.
The Chef said:
It would. Unfortunately, low berths are not sensible - as it stands they have a ridiculously high chance of killing or badly hurting whoever is in them when they are revived - way too high for a technology that is used as widely as those are.
In CT, if the passenger was healthy and a medic-2 or more was on hand, 6+ to survive - if the passenger was not healthy and a medic wasn't on hand, 4+ to survive. Otherwise 5+ to survive. Presumably these rolls are made using 2d6.
In MGT, the only rules I found were in Signs & Portents 63 (I don't know if that makes them official or not). A medic with Medic-0 needs to roll 11+ for sleeper survival there (8% survival rate), with Medic-1 he needs 10+ (17% survival rate), with Medic-2 he needs 9+ (28% survival rate). With Medic-3 or more, survival is automatic (which makes me wonder what was the point of saying the survival roll was 8+, if nobody ever actually rolls that).
