DeathStar II: Why so big?

[vakundok]

Any gravitic condition that can prevent even iron from reaching the forming planetoid.

Or what about the conditions those led Endor to loose its mother planet? Since moons don't loose 'their' planets regularly, something abnormal happened or abnormal conditions were present.

You're talking about the "Endor gate", right? Somehow I doubt that a randomly occurring space/time rift could create a planet of gold, but hey, whatever floats your boat, we've moved over to the realm of sci-fi now. I was thinking more in the lines of a double star/black hole system or similar.

NO! The post originally contained an example of baby Theo(retical) Endor being close to a binary system, but it has been deleted
because the 'any gravitic condition' included that case as well.

Maybe I should have wrote it like this instead:

Your theoretical planet would have to have more rare heavy elements in is composition than is realistically possible for an Earth-like planet, except under theoretical, rare, highly specific and localized conditions that has yet to be observed.

Yes, it is what my theory was based on.
In my theory these conditions were present and they led to the destruction of its planet. (That time Endor had nearly the same gravity as 'presently', but was unable to support life.) That cataclysm changed the course of Endor, so it got out of that point or territory and it began to evolve into a habitable planet.

[nightmare]

So, basically, you want to claim that Endor's sanctuary moon was highly abnormal - having near-Earth gravity although being much smaller.

With the supposed supporting evidence that Endor might have been so abnormal due to its birth in a binary system.

I would say that without some concrete evidence for your theory - quotes preferably - it is so weak that it can be totally dismissed out of hand. If you do have some evidence regarding the moon's unusual composition, it might be a weak possibility, though likely still below Saxton's mainstream theory - that Endor's moon had no less than 80% of Earth's radius, based on the reasonable assumption that Endor have no higher density than iron, and it had a gravity no less than two-thirds of Earth.

Basically, unless you have something that says "Endor's moon had unusually high density" or something to that extent, I would conclude that your theory is much too weak to be considered more likely than the prevailing theory about the size of Endor's moon.

Of course, in the case of the size of Death Star II, there is more evidence you would have to defeat as well.

I consider this discussion finished now, since there's not much more to say, unless you have some quotes.

[greenmm]

Um... not quite.

2x diameter for DS2 = 8x volume, and (assuming same density) 8x mass of the DS1.

2x volume and mass would require about 1.2599x diameter, putting the DS2 at about 200-202 km diameter.

Why would it neccesarily be volume rather than dimensional comparison? The context isn't clear. (BTW thats only the dimension ofr the partially complete portion. A half completed Death Star would be more like 400 km in diameter. At the bare-ass minimum, its 2/3 complete, so the complete diameter would be 300 km.) Size can refer to diamater just as well as "volume", and is probably more likely if its a "eyeball" comparison.

I'll agree that interpretation is important to the definition, but doesn't "it's twice as big" sound more like "it's twice the mass/volume", versus "it's twice as tall"?

Also, from the visuals of RotJ, the majority of the outer hull has already been completed. Were the completed portion to only represent 50% of its diameter, the completed DS2 would no longer be a sphere, but an ellipsoid.

As for the "half complete"... well, if it's anything like modern shipbuilding, IIRC you normally work on completing the framework and outer shell first, then work on completing all the internal systems. This would, IMHO, be especially critical in outer space, as obviously work in the exposed sections would require remote-controlled work robots or space-suited technicians; OTOH, sections where bulkhead and the outer armor had been installed could have life support turned on, even if artificial gravity wasn't available yet, and work could be done by technicians in standard work uniform (coveralls, or whatever the techs wear when working).

The Death Star was functional enough that it could fire its superlaser (even potentially destroying Endor) and it could manuver. It also presumably had life support and other associated power systems (control systems, lighting, some of its field technologies.) IT still needed a substantial portion of its interior constructed, however.

Which apparantly was part of the Emperor's plan: have the construction be still incomplete enough that the Rebels would think it wasn't operational yet, but have completed enough internal systems that it could be considered functional for combat. Also, while I used the example of shipbuilding, it might be better to compare it to the combination of shipbuilding and home/office construction, where it might have actually been more cost-effective for them to complete portions of the internal sections, including gravity/power/life support, in order to house the workers and provide a base to complete the rest of the work from.

Besides... having the power plant functional while the compartment was open to space would apparantly not be a problem, since the exhaust port on DS1 left its reactor "open to space" (ray-shielding only; no particle shielding = nothing to keep an atmosphere in) -- which could also be a safety feature for the reactor. Not knowing exactly how hypermatter reactors work, or whether or not the properties of antimatter (i.e. explosive conversion to energy when it encounters matter) apply to it, it might actually be SOP and prudent to have the reactor chamber exposed to the atmosphere.

Either way, though, even if the DS2 was only 200 km in diameter, assuming no major changes to the design, that's still:
-- enough outer hull space for 58% more turbolaser turrets (LTL's, MTL's, and HTL's)
-- room for a power plant with twice the power output (same lifespan), twice the lifespan (same power output), or 58% more output and 26% more lifespan [I'd lean toward increased output, given the additional turbolasers and the larger superlaser]
-- room for a superlaser with increased output and a faster recharge rate (depends on if the superlaser's output is dependent on the increased volume [2x] or the increased surface area of the outer focusing array [x1.58])
-- enough internal volume for double the number of TIE fighters, shuttles, AT-AT's, and ground troops (although simultaneous launch ability would only be about 58% higher)

This of course assumes that all the OTHER considerations are incorrect, and that your interpretation of the quote is correct.

Not quite. Unless they'd made changes to the design beyond the increase in size, simple volume increases would require those changes. When comparing 2 houses meant to be "identical" in all but size, you expect the larger house to have one of the following:

-- identical layout and number of rooms, but each room is X amount larger (X = square footage of larger home / square footage of smaller home). aka Same but Bigger.
-- rooms are identical in size and near-identical in dimensions, but there are X times as many (X as above); layout changes are required, but can vary from slight (i.e. door placement) to extreme. aka More of the Same.
-- the larger house has a few more rooms than the smaller house, and in general the rooms of the larger house are larger as well. aka More and Bigger.

The few rooms we see in the DS2 don't seem to be appreciably larger than the rooms from DS1, in particular the hanger bays and control rooms. That would seem to indicate they went with the More of the Same trend.

If you go with a "twice as big = 2x the diameter" concept, you still can figure out the improvements:
-- 400% more turbolaser emplacements on the surface (assuming similar distribution of HTL's, MTL's, and LTL's)
-- power plant with 8x the power output, 4x the output and 2x the lifespan, 8x the lifespan and identical power output, or 2.83x the output and lifespan of the DS1
-- 8x the personnel, troops, and pilots, with capacity to launch simultaneously 4x as many craft (assuming they increased the number of hanger/launch bays to coincide with the volume increase)
-- vastly improved superlaser. Based on area of dish, it could have 4x the firepower, 4x as quick of a recharge rate, 2x firepower and recharge rate, or some other combination whose multiple is 4 (2^2); based on volume of the DS2, it would be choice of 8x firepower, 8x as quick recharge rate, 4x firepower/2x as quick recharge rate, 2x firepower/4x as fast recharge, 2.83x firepower/recharge, or some other combination whose multiple is 8 (2^3).

Scaling up would be no problem. All I was pointing out was that, given the firepower of the DS1 (compared to half the entire Imperial Fleet, a feat enough to boggle the mind), the firepower of the DS2 would be near-incomprehensible, whether 200 km, 320 km, 500 km, or 800 km in diameter....

[greenmm]

The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.

Powerful enough to destroy asteroids and Rebel frigates and corvettes. Hardly full-power blasts.

True. But it also tells us, that the targeting-system of the prototype was able to target smaller vessels and objects (like DS2).

So why wasn´t DS1 able to do so?

As for things like computing-power, additional troops and other systems ...

I would understand it, if the increase in volume would have been tenfold, maybe twentyfold, but 178 times???

178-times???

How many eggs more would the empire have put into the thing compared to DS1?

Or are some people suggesting, that DS1 was an even more failed design, than we already know about?

Actually, I don't remember anything saying that the DS1 couldn't target starships at all. In fact, the only comment is that the DS1's turbolasers were having trouble targeting the X-Wings and Y-Wings... which would make sense, since the HTL's and probably MTL's would be optimized for firing against starships and not "snub-nosed fighters", and even the LTL's might have problems with their accuracy. Of course, normally they would have just sent their fighters out to destroy the Rebels, which they did -- and which apparantly had much more success than the turbolasers did, given the casualties suffered by the Rebels (1, maybe 2 fighters lost to turbolaser fire, versus at least 4-5 to TIE fighters).

In any case, since the Rebels at Yavin didn't send capital ships against the DS1, there's no proof either way as to the DS1's targeting capabilities. To me, though, the fact that the Rebels in RotJ were more shocked at the idea that the DS2 was firing on them period, as opposed to its ability to target and destroy capital ships, seems to indicate to me that they expected a functional DS1/DS2 to be able to target capital ships.

[Isolder74]

It was not practicle for the DS I TO TARGET STARSHIPS WITH ITS SUPERLASER but it was not designed for that since it had hundreds of thousands of turbolaser batteries for that job. The Emperor saw this new ability as a nice little trap for the rebels. With The Imperial fleet providing cover to prevent escape the Emperor could make his little show, use the rage it would create in Luke to turn him, and have a new less abisious man to searve him as his apprentice. It is rather obvious now that he has nevr intended to let anyone take his place as Master of the Sith.