GrandAdmiralSova117

Halo vs Star Trek

▼

Halo vs Star Trek

from Sins Forums

Edit: Ok everone, it looks like the Great Shink Crisis is over. I would like to thank The Undying for his help. Now the rest of you can get back to the debate here. And if anyone sees Shink point me his way; the hunt is not yet over!O:)  }:)  :cylon:  :cylon:  :cylon:  :cylon:   Send out the Cylon armies to help find Shink!

Will since things at my Halo vs Star Wars thread have come to a stop for at least now, I thought this would be interesting.

Now some ground rules I hope will keep this a bit civil: Everything for both sides MUST be canon. No insulting either side( jokes from modified quots from games, books and TV episodes are ok). No wanking, no Q will snap his fingers and destroy the Covenant and Halo rings, I don't watch much Trek but I know enough: Q and his people will be the first to grab the mega size bag of popcorn for the show. No Borg wanking, if the Borg are so powerful than why can't they conquer about 150 planets? And no wanking the Master Chief, Flood, Forerunner tech and anything I forgot. I want this to be as fair and civil as possible. 

Now lets go with a timeline of mid-TNG for ST and the end of the First Battle of Reach in Halo. Should that be a good timeline?

I suggest that if you do not know much about either side to read up on them.

Now! Let the battle begin!

off-topic
936,220 views 351 replies
Reply #76 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting kyogre12, reply 24

I've stayed out of this debate so far, but why does everyone have to bring up the halos like they are the end-all-be-all ultimate weapon or something? This kept happening in the Star Wars vs. Halo thread, too.

Yes, they kill all sentient life, but so what? That applies to Covenant as well. You light one up, and everyone is screwed. Only a complete moron would actually use them as a weapon.

That's why the Forerunner built Shield Worlds. To ride out the Halo blast.

Reply #77 from Elemental Forums Top

Sci Fi debates like this are relatively pointless, given most technologies in Halo and Star Trek will never come to be, and all science fiction series, films and games have contrived weaponry that's ridiculously overpowered for the sake of hurrying up a plot in a 30 minutes episode/game mission. Hence why I brought up the photon torpedo--as you can see, it's simply impossibly powerful. An explosion that size would take an incredible amount of antimatter--and enough matter to react with it. It's doubtable that enough anti-matter can be packed into a small torpedo to destroy a planet, and then somehow power itself enough to launch and guide itself at thousands of times the speed of light.

 

Similarly, it's completely contrived for the sake of a plot that somehow a metal ring floating in space can destroy scan for life on trillions of planets, then distinguish between which beings are sentient and non-sentient on those planets, and then in can magically make dissapear those beings with pinpoint precision and without causing any collateral damage. And it can do this instantly. At this point, there ceases to be a difference between 'technology' and 'magic', which goes to show that ultimately, all Sci Fi games and shows are fantasies.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #78 from Sins Forums Top
I found the video link I wanted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgihmmLY75Y&feature=related At about say 4:30 the fleet opens up on the planet. 30% of the planet crust destroyed in the first volley. I just may have to switch my vote.
Reply #79 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting SilentAlfa, reply 2
Sci Fi debates like this are relatively pointless, given most technologies in Halo and Star Trek will never come to be, and all science fiction series, films and games have contrived weaponry that's ridiculously overpowered for the sake of hurrying up a plot in a 30 minutes episode/game mission. Hence why I brought up the photon torpedo--as you can see, it's simply impossibly powerful. An explosion that size would take an incredible amount of antimatter--and enough matter to react with it. It's doubtable that enough anti-matter can be packed into a small torpedo to destroy a planet, and then somehow power itself enough to launch and guide itself at thousands of times the speed of light.

 

Similarly, it's completely contrived for the sake of a plot that somehow a metal ring floating in space can destroy scan for life on trillions of planets, then distinguish between which beings are sentient and non-sentient on those planets, and then in can magically make dissapear those beings with pinpoint precision and without causing any collateral damage. And it can do this instantly. At this point, there ceases to be a difference between 'technology' and 'magic', which goes to show that ultimately, all Sci Fi games and shows are fantasies.

Yeah.....that's why it's called science fiction. Ever wonder where the name comes from?

Reply #80 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting SilentAlfa, reply 2
Sci Fi debates like this are relatively pointless, given most technologies in Halo and Star Trek will never come to be, and all science fiction series, films and games have contrived weaponry that's ridiculously overpowered for the sake of hurrying up a plot in a 30 minutes episode/game mission. Hence why I brought up the photon torpedo--as you can see, it's simply impossibly powerful. An explosion that size would take an incredible amount of antimatter--and enough matter to react with it. It's doubtable that enough anti-matter can be packed into a small torpedo to destroy a planet, and then somehow power itself enough to launch and guide itself at thousands of times the speed of light.

 

Similarly, it's completely contrived for the sake of a plot that somehow a metal ring floating in space can destroy scan for life on trillions of planets, then distinguish between which beings are sentient and non-sentient on those planets, and then in can magically make dissapear those beings with pinpoint precision and without causing any collateral damage. And it can do this instantly. At this point, there ceases to be a difference between 'technology' and 'magic', which goes to show that ultimately, all Sci Fi games and shows are fantasies.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

I thought that was a rather approriate quote.

Quoting JagerJack, reply 1



Quoting kyogre12,
reply 24

I've stayed out of this debate so far, but why does everyone have to bring up the halos like they are the end-all-be-all ultimate weapon or something? This kept happening in the Star Wars vs. Halo thread, too.

Yes, they kill all sentient life, but so what? That applies to Covenant as well. You light one up, and everyone is screwed. Only a complete moron would actually use them as a weapon.


That's why the Forerunner built Shield Worlds. To ride out the Halo blast.

Yes, because the Covenant have an infinite supply of shield worlds, in which they can house their entire population. And despite their wonderful shield worlds, the forerunner are still dead, so they obviously worked real well.

/end sarcasm

Reply #81 from Elemental Forums Top

Yeah.....that's why it's called science fiction. Ever wonder where the name comes from?

I'm sorry, I just presumed that half of science fiction was science. Ever guessed where the name science fiction comes from? I'm perfectly capable of needlessly being a snarky asshole, too.

Reply #82 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting SilentAlfa, reply 6

I'm sorry, I just presumed that half of science fiction was science. Ever guessed where the name science fiction comes from? I'm perfectly capable of being needlessly being a snarky asshole, too.

The science is explained well enough in both. There is no need to overthink it, since it's fiction. We're just having a Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. I don't think we need you to tell us it can't happen in real life.

Quoting kyogre12, reply 5

Yes, because the Covenant have an infinite supply of shield worlds, in which they can house their entire population. And despite their wonderful shield worlds, the forerunner are still dead, so they obviously worked real well.

/end sarcasm

 I only stated the purpose of the Shield Worlds. I never said they worked(although the end of Halo 3 implies that at least one did).

 

Reply #83 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting kyogre12, reply 5

Yes, because the Covenant have an infinite supply of shield worlds, in which they can house their entire population. And despite their wonderful shield worlds, the forerunner are still dead, so they obviously worked real well.



/end sarcasm

I only stated the purpose of the Shield Worlds. I never said they worked(although the end of Halo 3 implies that at least one did).

I'm just pointing out that the halos aren't as awesome as everyone seems to think.

Reply #84 from Sins Forums Top
I will try and bring some more real star trek information. So far that video was the only thing really showing the power of these weapons. Agaist other ships and no additional information you could make shields and weapons as powerful as you want. For example take the torpedo it could be 64 megatons or 200 trillion and as long as the a star ship shield can take it who cares how powerful it is. What we need for this thread is more "real" information. There has been a lot of good things pulled from halo. We know 36 covie warships will wipe out an enemy colonie in what an hour or so? The video it would indicate the trek universe could do it in less time with less ships. Now to be fair the amount destruction they made is no place near the end result of the covenaut glassing. Say they fired 3 more volley and take out everything. I would like to see all the oceans boil away and atmospheres be destroyed just like the covenaunt. The video does make me rethink the odds, but I want more information still.
Reply #85 from Elemental Forums Top

The science is explained well enough in both. There is no need to overthink it, since it's fiction. We're just having a Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. I don't think we need you to tell us it can't happen in real life.

Then you really did miss the point--that since anything can happen in fiction--and everything does, for the sake of a plot point, it's inevitable that every soft sci fi will have something hilariously powerful as a plot point, and that it is always whipped out in a universe v. universe debate to claim supremacy. Halo can whip out its godlike halos, and Star Trek can whip out its godlike photon torpedoes and warp speed. 

 

Since there's no real science in either case, just made-up physics, you can't make the argument one way or the other. Because there's nothing to back anything up.

Reply #86 from Sins Forums Top

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Childhood's End reference FTW.

 honestly i dont see the point. Sure the covenant had their props, but the tactics that will be employed by any ST race (not just the federation) will negate most of not all tactics by the covenant. Who needs large combersome dropships when you can have your forces beam down to the area in general?

oh Weapon wise. Kinda iffy, but it also seems to favor the ST side. Sure the Elites have shielding as well as some jackals, but in the grand scope of things it will take little more than a few shots to take out something like a Wraith. Of course if a Scrab shows up, all you need is a few proton torpedoes shoved up its intake pipes.

Shipwise, the Covenant would win in a stand up fight. Star Trek ships have a nearly 360 degrees of firepower, but are spread relatively thin (unless in the occasional flotilla of armada) wheras their Covenant and UNSC counterparts usually deploy at least 20 in a "minor engagement" It seems that unless we go by an actual fluid strategy esque thing (which forums that pose these questions are keen to forget) the Covenant would certainly win these space engagements,although with a higher amount of casualties.

eh what you gonna do? Entrenchment is coming out soon, and with the stacked mods and the SOGE, SoA2, BSG, and B5 mods coming out you can answer that for yourselves (or play against other people)

Reply #87 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting SilentAlfa, reply 10

Then you really did miss the point--that since anything can happen in fiction--and everything does, for the sake of a plot point, it's inevitable that every soft sci fi will have something hilariously powerful as a plot point, and that it is always whipped out in a universe v. universe debate to claim supremacy. Halo can whip out its godlike halos, and Star Trek can whip out its godlike photon torpedoes and warp speed. 

 

Since there's no real science in either case, just made-up physics, you can't make the argument one way or the other. Because there's nothing to back anything up.

So we can't have fun? Of course we're not going to get anywhere and reach a definite answer, they're 2 different universes. The point of the debate is to just have fun thinking about which universe's weaponry is more powerful.

Reply #88 from Sins Forums Top

Similarly, it's completely contrived for the sake of a plot that somehow a metal ring floating in space can destroy scan for life on trillions of planets, then distinguish between which beings are sentient and non-sentient on those planets, and then in can magically make dissapear those beings with pinpoint precision and without causing any collateral damage. And it can do this instantly. At this point, there ceases to be a difference between 'technology' and 'magic', which goes to show that ultimately, all Sci Fi games and shows are fantasies.

It doesn't distinguish based on sentience to my knowledge, it just wipes out everything above a certain bio-mass so the flood can't spread anymore.  It just happens that being sentient requires a bio-mass above the safe point.  I don't think a weapon to do that is any more hard to believe than somethings in Star Trek.

Anyway, the Halo system would only be fired right before defeat by logical people.

To my knowledge Star Trek photon torpedoes use a mater/anti-mater reaction.  This gives us a hard limit on how much damage they can do.  If anyone can find an episode/movie that says the size of the payload on the torpedoes it would help this debate a lot.

Reply #89 from Elemental Forums Top

Had the post, sourced from several episodes, on photon torpedoes. As can be seen, it's utterly ridiculous.

 

One photon torpedo with a yield of 25 isotons destroys a small city, and a yield of 54 isotons destroys a small planet, suggesting that mass measurements in Star Trek are mysteriously exponential. If by "small planet", they mean something like the moon, the lower limit of the energy required to destroy the moon is 1.234 * 10^29 J, or about 30 trillion megatons of explosive force. So a single photon torpedo in Star Trek carries 30 trillion megatons of explosive force--and that's not even the largest torpedo, as higher-class torpedoes have yields of up to 200 isotons, and a range of 8 million KM. The torpedoes would not even have to come close hitting any vessel in Halo, even considering that explosions in space dissipate rather rapidly, they could miss by miles and destroy fleets.

((VOY: "Dreadnought", "Scorpion, Part II", "Living Witness", "Human Error", "The Voyager Conspiracy")

The Nova bomb, by comparison, carries about 5.4 million megatons as you mentioned, and was a prototype bomb that cost an awfully large amount, and was very heavy and apparently difficult to launch. Whereas a photon torpedo is easy to launch. If the ship is stationary, the torpedo can be launched at warp 9 ((TNG: "Pen Pals", "The Emissary"), or 1516c (http://www.trekmania.net/science/warp_scale.htm). At this speed, the photon torpedo would traverse its 8 million km range in about .01774 seconds. 

 

So to sum: a photon torpedo has a yield of 30 trillion megatons, can be fired from 8 million kilometers, and can reach its target faster than the blink of an eye.

Reply #90 from Sins Forums Top

Anyway, the Halo system would only be fired right before defeat by logical people.

I don't think so. Unless you know with 112% certainty that those who were about to defeat me were going to render unspeakable horrors upon any survivors (torture, slavery, etc) no one would use the rings. The federation, as far as I can tell, don't seem like they would do that. If the survivors/ non-combatants, etc are going to be treated well, what is the point of killing them? "oh, we're losing. I know, I'll condemn all the millions/billions/whatever back home to death just to enact my petty revenge!"

Plus there is the slight problem that the Covenant can't actually fire the rings themselves.

Reply #91 from Sins Forums Top
I am going to see if I can find some of these episodes, I bet they have a battle seen some place even if the rest of the episode is no place to be found.
Reply #92 from Sins Forums Top
Well the Borg have been neutralized as the Star Trek Destiny trilogy of novels. Sorry, no Borg vs flood. And as the Trek universe is now because of what happened in Destiny, the Federation and Klingon Alliance is in a very weakened state. As is much of the alpha quadrant is after the Dominion War. That being said I would have to vote for Star Trek over Halo. Mainly because most space traveling vessels in Star Trek are powered by the annihilation of matter and antimatter. I am not too sure what miracle technology they use in the Halo universe, but it is a fact that you can take matter and antimatter, put them together and have the resulting reaction create a tremendous amount of energy. When you get into the details, the science behind Star Trek is a lot more realistic than Halo.
Reply #93 from Sins Forums Top

Well the Borg have been neutralized as the Star Trek Destiny trilogy of novels.

I shall Quote Gene Roddenberry on referring to the fan novels. THEY ARE NOT TREATED AS CANNON (unless they were written by or approved by the Star Trek Writers)

borg vs flood will continue as proposed.

Reply #95 from Sins Forums Top

I decided to check the 30 trillion megaton claim and it doesn't work out

E=MC^2
C = 299,792,458
E = 1.234 * 10^29 J
1.234 * 10^29  = M(299,792,458 * 299,792,458)
Solve for M in Kg
1.234 * 10^29  / (299,792,458 * 299,792,458) = M
M = 1.373E12 Kg

Average male 86.6 Kg
1.373E12/86.6 = 1.585E10
Using 1.234 * 10^29 J for photon torpedoes means that the total mass(1/2 anti-mater, 1/2 normal) must be 1.373E12 Kg, which is 1.585E10 TIMES the average mass of a male human(86.6 kg)

Since we see one of Voyager's photon torpedoes in Living Witness, we know they are less than 3 times the size of a human sized alien.  So we must throw out 1.234 * 10^29 J as the power of photon torpedoes.
That still leaves us with the problem of how much of the photon torpedo is dedicated to anti-mater.

Reply #96 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Unknown924, reply 21
Considering that 'isotons' are a fictional unit of measurement, until someone provides calculations on what one isoton is equivelent to they are totaly useless in this debate.

Is it really hard for people on the Star Trek side to properly cite their claims?

I have provided weapon range and weapon speed for the Covenant that is beyond anything the Star Trek side has proved.

I am honestly starting to get annoyed at the claims made about Star Trek without evidence.

Next time someone makes a claim about Star Trek, I want the episode/movie that backs it up.  Even better, provide a video link of it happening.

Failure to provide evidence to back up a claim will result in it being dismissed until evidence is provided.

check this site then...http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Isoton for each of the claim it is backup by an an episode in the series

Reply #97 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting kyogre12, reply 24

the omega particle wouldnt matter if the halos were activated, all sentient life would be eradicated.
I've stayed out of this debate so far, but why does everyone have to bring up the halos like they are the end-all-be-all ultimate weapon or something? This kept happening in the Star Wars vs. Halo thread, too.

Yes, they kill all sentient life, but so what? That applies to Covenant as well. You light one up, and everyone is screwed. Only a complete moron would actually use them as a weapon.

no sure, if it was on star trek voyager, "In the flesh" or another episode, one of the opening quotes saying that weapons of mass destruction weren't designed to be used at all.

Reply #98 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting ice27828, reply 21

Quoting Unknown924, reply 21Considering that 'isotons' are a fictional unit of measurement, until someone provides calculations on what one isoton is equivelent to they are totaly useless in this debate.

Is it really hard for people on the Star Trek side to properly cite their claims?

I have provided weapon range and weapon speed for the Covenant that is beyond anything the Star Trek side has proved.

I am honestly starting to get annoyed at the claims made about Star Trek without evidence.

Next time someone makes a claim about Star Trek, I want the episode/movie that backs it up.  Even better, provide a video link of it happening.

Failure to provide evidence to back up a claim will result in it being dismissed until evidence is provided.
check this site then...http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Isoton for each of the claim it is backup by an an episode in the series

Even the halo stats are made up so it doesn't really in the first place

Reply #100 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting strikesback5, reply 24
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Star_Trek_Universe/home/?c=22
Any of those could own the Covenant and the Flood.

My comp or is am is anyone being denied