Science Says Star Wars Blows Up Better Than Star Trek

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Science Says Star Wars Blows Up Better Than Star Trek


Science has conclusively proven that the "concentric explosion ring" emanating from the revised detonation of the Death Star is slightly less idiotic than the one caused by the destruction of the Klingon moon of Praxis.

If there's a greater rivalry in the sci-fi milieu than the one between the Lucasian geeks and the Roddenberrite nerds, I've never heard of it. It's been a fairly balanced battle over the years; Star Wars [http://www.startrek.com/] has a guy who can throttle you by pointing. But thanks to the miracle of modern science, we can now say for certain that Star Wars is indisputably out in front in at least one vital area: cheesy CGI explosion effects.

The original destruction of the Death Star in 1977 is a moment etched into the memories of all who witnessed it, a grand denouement to the most epic cinematic experience of all time. But that wasn't good enough for ol' Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/]. Score one for the Trekkies, right?

Yes and no. Star Trek may have done it first but Star Wars actually did it right - sort of. As astronomer Phil Plait noted in his 2002 book Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, From Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax," [http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/dp/0471409766/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282855997&sr=1-1] "explosions in space tend toward spherical shape unless impeded." In other words, instead of a flat, Saturn-like ring rolling out from the focal point of the explosion, what you'd really end up with is a fairly uniform, expanding ball of burning gases and dead space goons.

But a very familiar feature of the Death Star, as we should all know, is that ill-conceived trench that runs entirely around it. This is a "point of interrupted stress," which would provide considerably less resistance to the explosion and thus make the fiery ring "far more plausible." Compared to some of the ridiculously convoluted explanations for various awkward twists and bumps in the Star Wars saga, this one actually makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, it's not a clean victory for Team Star Wars; the Death Star trench circles the station horizontally while Lucas, for some reason, decided to make his explosion ring effect vertical. Oops.

Source: Shadowlocked [http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=587:the-praxis-effect-star-wars-over-star-trek&catid=48:movies-misc]


Permalink
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Queen Michael said:
Star Wars wins! Now to find scientific evidence for all the other stuff in the movies. The lightsabers will have to be our first priority, of course.
They already made a lightsaber, but it lack a proper energy source. Give nano-materials a couple of years and it'll work.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Firefly still wins for not having sound in space.

Suck on that, Trekkies and... Wookies?
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
A fairly balanced battle between Star Wars and Star Trek?

Star Wars has lightsabres, the Force and the most iconic villain of all time. Star Trek has jumpsuits and an increasingly fat William Shatner. Although I will admit that the Picard meme's are hilarious.

I still can't choose which is best:


 

Aedes

New member
Sep 11, 2009
566
0
0
The geekness... it's overwhelming!

Yet, all I know so far is that we all like explosions. So no true point arguing about who has the more plausible kaboom effect, really.
 

bojac6

New member
Oct 15, 2009
489
0
0
This is but a small victory. Contact me when science has proved that Harrison Ford is sexier than Patrick Stewart. Or Carry Fischer in a metal bikini is hotter than Jeri Ryan in a skin tight suit. Then we will know once and for all.

(For the record, I do not think we need to wait for science. If there is a character from Star Trek sexier than Princess Leia, I haven't seen the episode. And I've seen all the episodes.)
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
bojac6 said:
(For the record, I do not think we need to wait for science. If there is a character from Star Trek sexier than Princess Leia, I haven't seen the episode. And I've seen all the episodes.)
The infamous "Decontamination" skit in Enterprise?
 

WINDOWCLEAN2

New member
Jan 12, 2009
1,059
0
0
Hooray For Science!

Still finding out things we never needed to know whilst forgetting to create a hover-boards and a cure for cancer!
 

DigitalSushi

a gallardo? fine, I'll take it.
Dec 24, 2008
5,718
0
0
Not only that but Praxis wasn't completely destroyed, only half of it, so the explosion is wrong there too, it should burst out to the sides and knock Praxis off it orbit.
 

Disaster Button

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2009
5,237
0
41
I think seeing a planet being swallowed up by a black hole, a supernova and an antimatter explosion in Star Trek 2009 tops that tiddly little moon Death Star.
 

twcblaze

Lurker Extraordinaire
Jun 18, 2009
316
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Unfortunately, it's not a clean victory for Team Star Wars; the Death Star trench circles the station horizontally while Lucas, for some reason, decided to make his explosion ring effect vertical. Oops.
maybe the camera was turned sideways and nobody noticed?
 

Tzekelkan

New member
Dec 27, 2009
498
0
0
Hah, the vertical ring/horizontal trench thing was the first thing that popped in my mind as soon as I read what the book guy was saying.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
I know how we can test this! Get us a death star so we can do a real example...heh heh
 

TheBlackKnight

ESEY on the Kross
Nov 3, 2008
204
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
bojac6 said:
(For the record, I do not think we need to wait for science. If there is a character from Star Trek sexier than Princess Leia, I haven't seen the episode. And I've seen all the episodes.)
The infamous "Decontamination" skit in Enterprise?
Jolene Blalock perhaps?
 

Naheal

New member
Sep 6, 2009
3,375
0
0
bojac6 said:
(For the record, I do not think we need to wait for science. If there is a character from Star Trek sexier than Princess Leia, I haven't seen the episode. And I've seen all the episodes.)
Seven of Nine.