Cost of a deathstar compared to a Star Destroyer

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-21 04:34pm

The Manhattan Project did noticably affect the budget, friend.

Shadows of the Empire stands.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 04:41pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The Manhattan Project did noticably affect the budget, friend.

Shadows of the Empire stands.

Alright, then the Star Wars universe had around 50 million Star Destroyers and around 1 million Super Star Destroyers.

We can also drop every single Star Wars novels which suggests small numbers for the empire which the New Republic has to fight.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-21 04:44pm

Don't be an asshole.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-02-21 05:12pm

The number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy is usually given a value between 100 billion and 400 billion.
The idea that 25,000 ISDs and a few million other ships could control a galaxy is just silly imo.
But most SF universe suffer from such incredible low ship numbers for powers which control a galaxy(or large parts of a galaxy)

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2004-02-21 06:11pm

Luzifer's right hand wrote:The number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy is usually given a value between 100 billion and 400 billion.
The idea that 25,000 ISDs and a few million other ships could control a galaxy is just silly imo.
But most SF universe suffer from such incredible low ship numbers for powers which control a galaxy(or large parts of a galaxy)

Actually, the old Britisch empire controlled a large part of the world with a relative small arm.
By the way, fear of retalliantion is a brutal but effective method.

The Romans did it, the Germans in both world wars, ... and god knows what other empires

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2004-02-21 06:20pm

wautd wrote:By the way, fear of retalliantion is a brutal but effective method.

The Romans did it, the Germans in both world wars, ... and god knows what other empires

IIRC the Tarkin doctrine was based on fear of retaliation. And maybe this existed in a form or another before the grand moff declared it.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-02-21 06:21pm

wautd wrote:
Luzifer's right hand wrote:The number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy is usually given a value between 100 billion and 400 billion.
The idea that 25,000 ISDs and a few million other ships could control a galaxy is just silly imo.
But most SF universe suffer from such incredible low ship numbers for powers which control a galaxy(or large parts of a galaxy)
Actually, the old Britisch empire controlled a large part of the world with a relative small arm.
By the way, fear of retalliantion is a brutal but effective method.

The Romans did it, the Germans in both world wars, ... and god knows what other empires

Yeah there is not difference between a world and Galaxy

And btw:
More than 5 million fighting troops were raised by the British Empire during the first world war.
The Germans controlled only large parts of Europa and the had a big army. The roman empire had a rather larger military too.

edit:
50 million Star Destroyers and around 1 million Super Star Destroyers.

This numbers sounds much more realistic for an empire which controls an entire Galaxy.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 07:26pm

Luzifer's right hand wrote:The number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy is usually given a value between 100 billion and 400 billion.
The idea that 25,000 ISDs and a few million other ships could control a galaxy is just silly imo.
But most SF universe suffer from such incredible low ship numbers for powers which control a galaxy(or large parts of a galaxy)

Even if we assume only 1 in a 100 or 1 in 100,000 stars are life supporting, we get ranges of 1 to 4 billion life supporting planets or 1 million to 4 million life supporting planets. That is a lot of potential planets.

some writers solve this by putting their universes as covering much less physical space and have a single planetary system having (say) 400 Star destroyer like (in size) ships. Distances are also measured in a relatively small number of light years instead of covering the entire galaxies. Before forced to by the Expanded Universe, I thought Star Wars was the same way and FTL was much slower, taking weeks to months to cover some distances.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 07:29pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Don't be an asshole.

Looks like at least someone agrees with me.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-21 08:07pm

You neglect that military spending is essentially on a need basis.

The Empire's infrastructure and such was set-up to support a given level of military, and making it up from scratch is expensive and time-intensive, especially if it isn't necessary.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 08:17pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You neglect that military spending is essentially on a need basis.

The Empire's infrastructure and such was set-up to support a given level of military, and making it up from scratch is expensive and time-intensive, especially if it isn't necessary.

At the number which you suggest for resources, the Empire could simply overspend so much compared to the Rebellion that they doid not have even a glimmer of hope.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-21 08:20pm

Kitsune wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:You neglect that military spending is essentially on a need basis.

The Empire's infrastructure and such was set-up to support a given level of military, and making it up from scratch is expensive and time-intensive, especially if it isn't necessary.
At the number which you suggest for resources, the Empire could simply overspend so much compared to the Rebellion that they doid not have even a glimmer of hope.

How did the material advantage of the Empire, measured in many orders of magnitude anyway, have any influence on the outcome of Endor?

Palpatine died, and he chose to bring a single minimum core component of a Sector Group. Adding more stuff to the Empire doesn't change that that was how he evaluated the strategic situation and that is why the battle turned out the way it did.

The Empire's material advantage did precisely nothing for them at Endor; Palpatine constructed a regime which could not exist without him. He died, and the regime imploded on itself.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 10:09pm

Congradulation, you proved my point again. The reasources would have been better spend to build a huge battlefleet, stay home, and let his fleet do the job instead of maniac projects like the Death Star.

Face it, Lucas and most of his novel writers have virtually no tactical and strategic thinking with their stories.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-21 10:12pm

Kitsune wrote:Congradulation, you proved my point again. The reasources would have been better spend to build a huge battlefleet, stay home, and let his fleet do the job instead of maniac projects like the Death Star.

Face it, Lucas and most of his novel writers have virtually no tactical and strategic thinking with their stories.

The Death Star was a political statement, not a military move.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 10:22pm

Rogue 9 wrote: The Death Star was a political statement, not a military move.

Sure, the statement is the the Emperor is stupid

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-21 10:29pm

Kitsune wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: The Death Star was a political statement, not a military move.
Sure, the statement is the the Emperor is stupid

No, it was the culmination of the Tarkin Doctine of rule by fear. It would have worked marvelously too, except for the little problem of a certain thermal exhaust port. And that was Bevel Lemelisk's stupidity, not Palpatine's.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-21 10:43pm

Read about Stalin is you want to learn teh Real meaning of Terror. In honesty, I think Vader and the Emperor were nice people compared to him

Even so, the huge potential cost of the Death Star make it less cost effective at Terror than huge numbers of ships. The ships can be a visible presence and remind you "I am watching"

I want to also state that the Universe has severe scale problems which some excuses can be made but they never really fit.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-02-21 11:09pm

The Tarkin doctrine demanded potent symbols. It is the sole reason for all the superweapons. ISD were also considered part of this, being overkill at the time they were designed.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-22 12:15am

Assuming 1 million human (or other race) star systems and assuming 10% are rebelling, assume they destroy one planet a day, that means it will take 257 years to destroy all the rebelling planets.

In reality, even the most ardent imperial would have trouble supporting this in reality.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-22 12:23am

Kitsune wrote:Congradulation, you proved my point again. The reasources would have been better spend to build a huge battlefleet, stay home, and let his fleet do the job instead of maniac projects like the Death Star.

Face it, Lucas and most of his novel writers have virtually no tactical and strategic thinking with their stories.

No, the Death Star and the trap were just ancillary points; the true conflict was setting things up to ensnare Skywalker--the Rebellion was of no concern to the Galactic Emperor.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-02-22 01:49am

Kitsune wrote:Assuming 1 million human (or other race) star systems and assuming 10% are rebelling, assume they destroy one planet a day, that means it will take 257 years to destroy all the rebelling planets.

In reality, even the most ardent imperial would have trouble supporting this in reality.

As I recall, the admiralty said what you say and wanted more ships, not Death Stars.

The limits of DS1 planetary destructions doesn't matter. Would you want it in your system? That's the point Tarkin made. It would have worked too - otherwise the rebels wouldn't have be so eager to destroy all the superweapons. With the appearance of the Galaxy Gun they said "the rebellion is doomed" (or something to that context) when the pinnacle moon was destroyed. Leia said something similar in the infinities in which the DS1 survived. The point was also stressed in the OT.

Now, you are undoubtly right - more ships could do more than a single DS. But the whole idea was "rule by fear of force rather than force itself", which I have just shown was a working idea. You advocate rule by force. This wasn't what Palpatine and Tarkin wanted.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-22 02:49am

Depends on who in the Admiralty. In my post where I said that the Death Star was a political statement I almost put in a bit about how General Tagge was against the Death Star project, which I know I've read, but couldn't name my source so I left it out. However, we all know Motti was a big fan. Fat lot of good it did him.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-02-22 03:01am

Real power = real fear

ph34r power = blah

Having 5k ESSD attacking my planet is much more scary.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-22 03:03am

SWPIGWANG wrote:Real power = real fear

ph34r power = blah

Having 5k ESSD attacking my planet is much more scary.

Much more scary than your planet's instant, one shot reduction into rubble?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2004-02-22 12:36pm

nightmare wrote: As I recall, the admiralty said what you say and wanted more ships, not Death Stars.

That would suggest that the Deathstar did cost alot in simple economic terms, maybe less that it should have in reality though, but that building the Death Star meant that they could not build additional starships (or at least not many.)