No, Biggs says "pull up," not eject. And they showed the turbolasers firing for a reason. They wouldn't have if it was a mechanical failure.

He says pull up, then he says eject. I just watched it. They showed the turbolasers because it is part of the atmosphere, the turbolasers were firing the whole time.

Yeah, he does say eject. I thought he was saying Jek, which is Porkins' first name.

Where'd you find out that it's a mechanical failure?

I think I have heard it in many places, so I will try to track down a few that I can rememeber.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/jekredsixporkins/index.html)
I guess that means it is official.

http://decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/premiere/dark/large/ivegotaproblemhere.html)
The only other source I can find.

From the official site:

His fighter was hit by the Imperial weapons emplacement, bursting into fiery fragments, and killing Porkins immediately.

Not shot down by turbolasers eh?

Though his X-wing fighter was maneuverable enough to avoid the Death Star's sluggish turbolasers, a mechanical malfunction hampered his ability (stopped reading here) to dodge enemy fire.

The mechanical failure disabled his manuverability, which allowed the turbolasers to shoot him down.

I see I have proved my point. :)

I feel it proves my point as well, it is the maneuverability that prevents them from being hit, the torpedos do not maneuver, so they are easier for the lasers to pick off then evading starfighters. Thanks for pressing the issue, I would not have found this compelling evidence!

===------(-
/||
=|||
|||||||======> vs. --
=|||
\||
===------(-

X-wing Torpedo


I wonder which is harder to hit.... :rolleyes:

*wonders*


edit: btw, if you scroll this page up and down really fast, you can get a seizure from looking at TK's sig :p

Lets see, something flying in a straight line at a constant speed, vs. something that is dodging, varying speed, completely unpredictable, and focused on not getting hit. Hmmm, I'll have to go with the torp on this one.

If you guys are gonna get technical and all why don't you first figure out how the hell an X-Wing could even exist since the way it travels in space is impossible in the first place :dozey:

Originally posted by Lynk Former
If you guys are gonna get technical and all why don't you first figure out how the hell an X-Wing could even exist since the way it travels in space is impossible in the first place :dozey:


I'm not so sure its known how an X-Wing travels in space. Please enlighten us.

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
I'm not so sure its known how an X-Wing travels in space. Please enlighten us.

Er'... watch the movies... all Star Wars (And the other popular Sci-Fi shows of the time like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers, etc.) fighters fly like they are in an atmosphere more than the way a spacecraft would handle.

The best representation, in my humble opinion, of space combat would have to be the series Babylon 5.

Originally posted by RedHawke
Er'... watch the movies... all Star Wars (And the other popular Sci-Fi shows of the time like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers, etc.) fighters fly like they are in an atmosphere more than the way a spacecraft would handle.

Exactly. There's no point argueing about such things when the whole basis of the arguement features machines that don't exist and that can't exist in their current form.

Originally posted by RedHawke
Er'... watch the movies... all Star Wars (And the other popular Sci-Fi shows of the time like Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rodgers, etc.) fighters fly like they are in an atmosphere more than the way a spacecraft would handle.

The best representation, in my humble opinion, of space combat would have to be the series Babylon 5.

they seem to maneuver like current aircraft in atmoshpere do because an aircraft maneuvers by redirecting air, which causes drag, and also changes lift, which allows aircraft to maneuver in it's dimensions. However, starfighters cannot maneuver via the redirectiong of air or by lift because they fly in vacuum. Thus, the designers created maneuvering thrusters(which are small thrusters that rotate the starfighters) and placed them on strategic places on the fighter to allow it maneuverability

Originally posted by .:CoupeS:.
edit: btw, if you scroll this page up and down really fast, you can get a seizure from looking at TK's sig :p

Yeah, and you made the sig! :xp:

We know that "manuvering" torpedoes exist in Star Wars (see Jango's "missile" that he fires at Obi-Wan's ship in AOTC). Even Luke's torpedoes fired into the exhaust port pull a sharp turn to go into the hole.

If the turbolasers can only hit one ship that's having mechanical difficulties and therefore flying in a straight line for too long, they're going to have a heck of a time hitting a tiny torpedo many times smaller.

The Death Star was built around a "large scale assault" involving capital ships ("they don't consider a small one-man fighter to be a threat, or they'd have better defenses"), it had great difficulty with one-man fighters, that was the whole point of the attack, and why Vader had to launch fighters to deal with them.

For that matter, why not just have an armada of Rebel ships firing swarms of dodging missiles from their maximum range, instead of coming within their turbolaser range?

Cause the deathstar had BIG GUNS to kill BIG SHIPS
they wouldnt have been able to go into range before they were burned to ashes
and besides, i dont think they had any on Yavin 4

warheads have greater range than lasers, so they would not have to come within the range of their guns to fire warheads. also, an armada would not have to consist of capital ships, but could be swarms of starfighters (however, i intended it to mean everything they've got).


Whatever happened to the original topic?...

Well, this is more interesting anyway.

There's also the theory that the Death Star had it's own invisible shield (not as powerful as the DeathStar 2's shield of course). Remember the "magnetic field" that the fighters had to slow down to pass through (they then "accelerate to attack speed" once inside)?

That might prevent missiles from being fired from long range to track into the hole. Also, there is mention of heavy jamming (more in the novel/screenplay but there's a few instances of pilots saying they "can't see" things). This jamming might make it difficult for missiles to track (hence why Luke had to fire his torps so close to the exhaust port, rather than a mile away or something).

that makes sense, and could explain why they couldn't come in perpendicular. the turning radius may have made it impossible to get close enough to take the shot. after all, Biggs says "at that speed, will we be able to pull out in time?" and that is just the little change in direction to clear the wall. imagine a full u-turn.

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
that makes sense, and could explain why they couldn't come in perpendicular. the turning radius may have made it impossible to get close enough to take the shot. after all, Biggs says "at that speed, will we be able to pull out in time?" and that is just the little change in direction to clear the wall. imagine a full u-turn.

Because it's a movie.


Yeah yeah, I know that you guys like to discuss this sort of thing but my overwealming commonsense is making me say all of this. It can't be helped.

yeah, but my overwhelming nerdiness (if thats a word, and even if its not) makes me ignore it.