Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Staff Sergeant wabbit42's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    89

    Post Drones vs..... Drones

    So there has been much talk about how Destiny is weak compared to the drones, which makes the drone-builders more advanced than the Ancients, blah blah blah. Destiny is millions of years prior to peak Lantean technology, so I ask you... how would Lantean drones fare against SGU drones?

  2. #2
    First Lieutenant
    Member Since
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    628

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    no way to know, really. destiny is millions of years pre-peak lantean civilisation* but it can recharge inside a star - first ancient tech we've seen that can. the ship atlantis found on the geothermal planet that turned to lava might not even have survived the lava if they didn't use hyperspace to get out.

    also, destiny has been floating around for millions of years - and, iirc, saw combat before the crew ever arrived. as well as that, the ship was nowhere near peak operating capacity, and hasn't been brought to peak operations either. the drones are strong against destiny now - but it doesn't mean that a fully-operational destiny is weak against them.

    without knowing where destiny (as it is today) stands against peak lantean civilisation, we can't reliably judge how the SGU drones would fare. and without knowing how powerful destiny-at-its-peak was, we can't be sure how it compares against either lantean or SGU-drone tech.



    *note, i specify civilisation rather than technology here as, in some cases, the most advanced technology may not always have been implemented. for example - it seems very useful having a ship that can dip into a star to recharge, but a warship or city having to make routine stops might become a liability. some technologies may have fallen into disuse, simply because they weren't the most practical for most applications.

    additionally, judging from the appearance of atlantis and the ships we know of that were connected to it, we can surmise the ancients liked things to be pretty as well as functional. destiny is rugged, functional, but not necessarily the most eye-pleasing design. a crystal goblet is nice for wine, but i'd rather have a glass for a pint of beer

  3. #3
    Staff Sergeant wabbit42's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    89

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    no way to know, really. destiny is millions of years pre-peak lantean civilisation* but it can recharge inside a star - first ancient tech we've seen that can. the ship atlantis found on the geothermal planet that turned to lava might not even have survived the lava if they didn't use hyperspace to get out.
    A very good point here. Well several, really. You are right. Mint condition Destiny would likely have been far superior to what it is now and probably more capable of fighting drones.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    I thought Destiny was designed for scientific exploration more then actual ship-to-ship combat? Although the vessel has some defensive mechanism's I always assumed that the Ancients would wish to solve any meetings with civilizations more peacefully. Whilst the Drones were designed to destroy entire fleets and civilizations.

  5. #5
    Staff Sergeant
    Member Since
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    I don't think it's just a matter of advancement level, the functionality of the ships do matter. The drones are war ships, build to destroy stuff and other ships. Destiny is probably foremost an exploration/research ship but have enough weapons/defences to fend off an attack. Lantean warships will probably have more weapons design to fight other ships with hundreds of drones design to destroy ships. Just as a drone command ship on it's own is pretty much very useless without it's drones since it's functionality is probably to carry drones around only.

  6. #6
    First Lieutenant gkyun's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oma's deli
    Posts
    998

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    Quote Originally Posted by Keeper View Post
    no way to know, really. destiny is millions of years pre-peak lantean civilisation* but it can recharge inside a star - first ancient tech we've seen that can. the ship atlantis found on the geothermal planet that turned to lava might not even have survived the lava if they didn't use hyperspace to get out.
    I just like to point out that the reason Destiny needs to recharge inside a star periodically is probably because the Ancients didn't have a viable apparatus for power generation at the time Destiny was built, which explains its ruggedness. While the ship is impressive in and of itself, one should not think of it as more advanced than it ought to be.
    "Yo, you wanna join SG-1?"


  7. #7
    First Lieutenant
    Member Since
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    628

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    Quote Originally Posted by gkyun View Post
    I just like to point out that the reason Destiny needs to recharge inside a star periodically is probably because the Ancients didn't have a viable apparatus for power generation at the time Destiny was built, which explains its ruggedness. While the ship is impressive in and of itself, one should not think of it as more advanced than it ought to be.
    and the fact remains that nothing else that we've seen of ancient tech could withstand a star. thus, the shield technology is either a completely different development track from later shields, or else they decided not to use shields that were advanced enough to withstand a star simply because they weren't practical for general usage.

    in the former case, i'd be surprised if solar-protective tech wasn't useful for other purposes, and in the latter it would show that some aspects of destiny's design may well have been more advanced than later developments. we're already aware that they don't use ATA, and the chair interface is relatively primitive, so the whole ship can't be more advanced - but there's no way to know what's better and what's not.



    of course, the most realistic answer for why destiny recharges in a star is that it was a creative decision, that ignored continuity of tech development by the ancients. in which case, if the writers wanted to show destiny wipe out an armada of lantean warships...

  8. #8
    First Lieutenant gkyun's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oma's deli
    Posts
    998

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    Quote Originally Posted by Keeper View Post
    and the fact remains that nothing else that we've seen of ancient tech could withstand a star. thus, the shield technology is either a completely different development track from later shields, or else they decided not to use shields that were advanced enough to withstand a star simply because they weren't practical for general usage.

    in the former case, i'd be surprised if solar-protective tech wasn't useful for other purposes, and in the latter it would show that some aspects of destiny's design may well have been more advanced than later developments. we're already aware that they don't use ATA, and the chair interface is relatively primitive, so the whole ship can't be more advanced - but there's no way to know what's better and what's not.



    of course, the most realistic answer for why destiny recharges in a star is that it was a creative decision, that ignored continuity of tech development by the ancients. in which case, if the writers wanted to show destiny wipe out an armada of lantean warships...
    I guess my point was one of perspective. Just consider, the space shuttle is built in such a way as to withstand solar radiation and the blunt force of high-heat re-entry. Research is already underway to develop future space crafts that have magnetic fields that can protect the craft better than any form of physical shielding and beacuse of that the hull would probably be thin as paper, but does that mean that because the space shuttle can manage re-entry without an energy field, it is more advanced?

    Another more realistic example would be warships of WWII. A standard battle cruiser in that era can take on a barrage of torpedo strikes and still manage to stay afloat. The most advanced Aegis warship of today would most likely split in two and sink within minutes if hit by just one torpedo. But its survivability is determined by GPS-assisted missile defence and early warning system so that the ship can engage the enemy hundreds of miles away in the safety of its own waters.

    So my point is that as times change, so does the status of popular thinking. If Destiny were built in the lantean era, it probably would have been built in the same vein as an Aurora class or Atlantis with powerful shields powered by ZPMs and a hull made of waffle. But the Ancients chose to built Destiny this way probably because, as I mentioned before, they didn't have a power source like a ZPM to power the ship's systems, otherwise they wouldn't have needed the ship to dive right into a star for "sun juice" in the first place.
    "Yo, you wanna join SG-1?"


  9. #9
    First Lieutenant
    Member Since
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    628

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    shuttle with or without magnetic fields: apples and oranges.

    same goes for naval vessels with and without advanced sensors.

    both are examples of replacing one system with another, while i'm pointing out the difference between different shield systems themselves, rather than a shield replacing a hull.



    Destiny's shields can withstand a star. not just the hull, but the shields themselves. we know Atlantis can't withstand a coronal mass ejection with one ZPM - they need the Daedalus to redirect it before it can reach the planet. yet, we know from Destiny that they have the capacity to build shield generators that can deal with the sun.

    sure, with 3 ZPMs, Atlantis seems to have been able to deal - it's made clear in the same episode that they encountered the problem before. however, i'd wager a guess that a shield that can withstand entry into a star can probably withstand quite a bit of enemy fire. it makes sense to protect a capital city, as well as warships, with at least the best available defensive tech - and, as i've said, the Aurora-class couldn't even handle a little lava on the shields.



    with regards to my above comment regarding physical states of Destiny vs. Atlantis-era designs - a good comparison is, perhaps, a Ford and a BMW or Mercedes.* any will get you where you want to go, and perform decently on the road, however the BMW and Merc are status symbols, showing things off. the Ford is designed for getting from A to B as well, just less for status and more for directly practical.





    *admittedly this is less true with cars nowadays, but it's not that many years ago that cheaper cars were built much more for functionality than for status of appearance. even today, a BMW or Merc symbol on the car is, for some people, more important than how it performs, because it looks impressive.

  10. #10
    Captain morbosfist's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,693

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    Quote Originally Posted by Keeper View Post
    Destiny's shields can withstand a star. not just the hull, but the shields themselves. we know Atlantis can't withstand a coronal mass ejection with one ZPM - they need the Daedalus to redirect it before it can reach the planet. yet, we know from Destiny that they have the capacity to build shield generators that can deal with the sun.
    I have to interject. The issue was not that Atlantis couldn't survive, because it easily could. The issue was that, without three ZPMs, the coronal mass ejection would have basically destroyed the surface of the planet, i.e. unlivable hellhole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keeper View Post
    sure, with 3 ZPMs, Atlantis seems to have been able to deal - it's made clear in the same episode that they encountered the problem before. however, i'd wager a guess that a shield that can withstand entry into a star can probably withstand quite a bit of enemy fire. it makes sense to protect a capital city, as well as warships, with at least the best available defensive tech - and, as i've said, the Aurora-class couldn't even handle a little lava on the shields.
    Enemy fire is not the same thing as the heat of a star. Destiny's shields are no doubt designed to be specifically resistant to the conditions within a star, rather than directed energy weapons. Apples and oranges.

  11. #11
    First Lieutenant The Swarm's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    559

    Default Re: Drones vs..... Drones

    Also how do you know the drones dont fire energy weaponry capable of weakening or bypassing the shields of starships?

Similar Threads

  1. Drones and mini-drones
    By kernl sandrs in forum SGA General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 16th, 2010, 08:01 PM
  2. Drones
    By Pogo01 in forum Enemy At the Gate
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 21st, 2009, 02:06 PM
  3. Drones
    By The Fifth One in forum SG-1 Science and Tech
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 16th, 2008, 11:32 AM
  4. Ori Drones
    By Sam fisher in forum SG-1 Science and Tech
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 20th, 2007, 04:34 PM
  5. Drones Vs. Ori
    By jenks in forum SG-1 Science and Tech
    Replies: 243
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 12:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •