StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One thing I've been curious about is the firepower of these superlasers, and what precisely it means. The Dark Empire sourcebook says that they have only 1/3rd of the firepower of the original Death Star superlaser, insufficient to destroy a world but which can "sear a continent in a flash" and render it uninhabitable with a single shot. Yet, we know that the firepower of the original Death Star is well in excess of overcoming the gravitational binding energy of a planet. So what does this mean?

I see two possibilities, either that the 1/3rd the power quote was intended to mean that the superlasers produced in one shot 1/3rd of the gravitational binding energy of the planet, or that the superlasers produced 1/3rd of the energy of the original death star's--which meant when firing through a typical theatre shield there would be only be enough bleed-off energy left to pulverize a continental landmass and instantly render the world uninhabitable. Against an unshielded planet, the planet would still be destroyed.

Yet the size of the vessels does not seem to recommend that they could achieve such a feat. If the power of a single shot of their superlaser is comparable to 1/3rd of the gravitational binding energy of a planet, then, what are we looking for in terms of effects on an unshielded world? I certainly see the scale of damage being comparable to the impact which created the Earth's moon, though I'm not sure about the exact energy comparison. And, more pertinently, how much power is that in comparison with the acknowledged abilities of turbolasers and so on?

Could turbolaser power be measured informally on a logarithmic scale? If that's the case, then according to the planet killers essay on the main site, since the Death Star releases some 1e22 megatons of energy, a shot at 1e(22/3) ~ 1e7 megatons places it at an energy release similar to a large asteroid strike, with continent-wide destruction.

Also, I wonder what order of magnitude you'd get scaling down reactors from the DS to an Eclipse, assuming (and this is relatively justified) that power generation density remains the same.

EDIT: If an Eclipse is 10 times longer than an ISD and the reactor scales up (is this assumption justified?), then it should generate some thousand times the power of an ISD reactor. Since an ISD reactor generates something like 1e26 W, an Eclipse should generate on the order of 1e29 W. If it can fire its superlaser once a day, then that means it releases about 8e33 J. If it can fire once an hour, the superlaser should discharge about 4e32 J, which is still twice the gravitational binding energy of a planet. If the assumptions hold, the second interpretation makes more sense.

Perhaps the reactor in one of these suckers is much smaller, to account for the necessary machinery to generate a powerful superlaser?

Odds are it only means 1/3 the effect of the laser, rather than the amount of energy dumped into said planet.

Vaporizing a continent or cracking the planet fits that nicely, I say.

If an Eclipse is 10 times longer than an ISD and the reactor scales up (is this assumption justified?)

Though smaller than Executor, Eclipse has much more volume, I believe. The ship could fit a much larger reactor.

I wish they'd retcon Veitch's stupid 1/3 figure and just say that the Eclipse's superlaser was designed only to be powerful enough to collapse a planetary shield with a single shot. That would scale back its power to a more believable level proportionate to the ship's size.

As I recall it was 2/3 the power, not 1/3. And IIRC further, it wasn't for the whole superlaser collectively, it was for one of the tributary beams. The thing is, we don't know What Tributary beams. There's an awful lot of those (the eight baems that form the main beam are each made up from a number of smaller beams, etc. And that doesn't include the 4 or so "backup" beam generators.)

Another way to rationalize is is that it can destroy planets (meet the 2e32 joule requirement) but it doesn't do it as violently as the DS does, and needs a prolonged recharge rate (which it does have.)

In terms of sustained reactor output, the Eclipse and Sovereigns shoul dprobably be at least comparable to the Executor (e27 watts) but probably a bit more powerful due to its greater size/mass (closer to e28-29) and somewhat greater sophistication.

I think the 'continental damage' is the more sensible datapoint, so I'd just ignore/rationalise the '1/3 power' thing. Regardless of power, it's going to take ages to recharge.

Stark wrote:I think the 'continental damage' is the more sensible datapoint, so I'd just ignore/rationalise the '1/3 power' thing. Regardless of power, it's going to take ages to recharge.

According to the Planet Killer page on the Main Site, you can damage a continent with as little as 10-100 teratons. That's about the output of a single Venator HTL, by Curtis' estimations. I'd imagine the Eclipse Superlaser is a WEE bit more than that

Hell even the PK entry of 1e10-1e11 megatons (vaporizing an entire continent) is less powerful than the estimated output/firepower for the Executor (4e25-e26 joules.) and that isn't even accounting for the recharge rate. hell, the ISD is supposed to be in the high e9 megaton range (e24-e25 watts) in terms of power generation and firepower. An Eclipse should be at LEAST orders of magnitude better.

That's why I think characterizing it as an anti-shield weapon is the way to go.

Afterall, the combined firepower of Vader's fleet couldn't defeat the shield over Echo Base, but a single ISD can reduce an entire world to slag in a matter of hours?

Suddenly the ability to destroy a single continent doesn't seem all that impressive.

Well, the first DS had enough power to overwhelm the Alderaan shield and blow up the planet. What if a third of that power was just enough to down the shield and do serious damage to the continent?

Assuming an arbitrary DS firepower of 20, and the planetary shield rated at 6, the DS would easily have enough power to blow it to small pieces, while the eclipse superlaser, at a rating of about 7, would just barely crack the shield, and scorch the planet.

Seems to me the ability to collapse the shield without damaging the planet itself would be preferable.

Connor MacLeod wrote:According to the Planet Killer page on the Main Site, you can damage a continent with as little as 10-100 teratons. That's about the output of a single Venator HTL, by Curtis' estimations. I'd imagine the Eclipse Superlaser is a WEE bit more than that

Hell even the PK entry of 1e10-1e11 megatons (vaporizing an entire continent) is less powerful than the estimated output/firepower for the Executor (4e25-e26 joules.) and that isn't even accounting for the recharge rate. hell, the ISD is supposed to be in the high e9 megaton range (e24-e25 watts) in terms of power generation and firepower. An Eclipse should be at LEAST orders of magnitude better.

Oh I'm not arguing that: I'm just saying that it can blow up planets may be going too far, and putting it too far above Executor is probably bad. The Municifent is perhaps a good analogy: Eclipse may have slightly better reactors than Executor, but the ability to charge for yonks and fire it all though a single gun would have utility without being near the 'blow up shielded planets' bizzo.

Galvatron wrote:Seems to me the ability to collapse the shield without damaging the planet itself would be preferable.

Fine-tuning the exact effect wanted would be a pain in the ass for the gunnery officers at those levels of firepower. Imagine the builders' trials:

"Okay, let's try 12.67543292 percent power this time against a standard theater shield"

*THWAKOOOM*

"Nope, still leveled the continent. Scale it down to 12.67543291 percent and fire up the next shield generator."

How do you know the gunners don't have sophisticated instruments that do the work for them? Could a droid do it?

Galvatron wrote:How do you know the gunners don't have sophisticated instruments that do the work for them? Could a droid do it?

It's possible, but my way is funnier. There's also the possibility, or probability in all likelihood, that the defenders are going to be jamming for all they're worth. Since in-universe defensive installations have shown levels of jamming that make it so that attackers can't even tell if the shield is up, this makes fine-tuning an attack based on sensor readings iffy at best.

We know from the Torpedo Sphere that there are minute fluctuations that crop up and can be exploited. This can take a while to do though, as in hours of constant scanning. At which point, you might as well bring in a Torpedo Sphere.

My envisioning is that they shoot the superlaser at Antartica or the nearest equivalent if they give a crap about the valuable real estate. If like with Coruscant, there is no such waste of space for a target, the beam could be aimed to not actually hit the planet if the shield is generated out far enough and the curvature of the planet allows.

consequences wrote:If like with Coruscant, there is no such waste of space for a target, the beam could be aimed to not actually hit the planet if the shield is generated out far enough and the curvature of the planet allows.

There may be a problem with this. Shields work by splintering the beam; we know from ANH -- Tantive IV hit and Luke's X-Wing hit -- that a glancing strike to a failing shield will direct the fragments inward toward the ship. If the planetary shield fails before the beam is fully dissipated, you'll still have collateral damage from the strike.

And if you're using a superlaser even scaled down to Sovereign and Eclipse scale then you're probably not overly concerned about collateral damage. This probably also holds true if you happen to be a massive galaxy spanning evil empire.

"Hey let's invade" "Right, begin blockade and contact the local torpedo sphere"

or

"Hey let's invade" <quote>*THWAKOOOM*<unquote> "hmmm crispy, right begin landing on the northern continents while we wait for the debris cloud over the sourthern hemisphere to settle"

One seems a little more expedient than the other. Also what's the psychological effects of leaving a continent sized imperial brand mark on the backside of a planet?

I have a feeling that even the Empire would be more concerned with subjugating rebellious world than reducing them to slag.

I once did a pretty through analysis of the star dreadnaughts, and I put the axial superlasers for them at 10^31 joules. I based it off the numbers needed for the ships to function and recoil from comparable platforms rather then statements about performance however. Though at that power, it would punch through a planetary shield with enough left to basically 1 shot BDZ the place, which would match the searing of continents description.

Stark wrote:I think the 'continental damage' is the more sensible datapoint, so I'd just ignore/rationalise the '1/3 power' thing. Regardless of power, it's going to take ages to recharge.

about 30 minutes from my number crunching.

Galvatron wrote:That's why I think characterizing it as an anti-shield weapon is the way to go.

Afterall, the combined firepower of Vader's fleet couldn't defeat the shield over Echo Base, but a single ISD can reduce an entire world to slag in a matter of hours?

Suddenly the ability to destroy a single continent doesn't seem all that impressive.

the shield over alderaan held for several frames. When it was investigated here it was determined that a planetary shield is good for about 10^31 joules. The Echo base/BDZ incidents are consistent with that.

Stark wrote: Oh I'm not arguing that: I'm just saying that it can blow up planets may be going too far, and putting it too far above Executor is probably bad. The Municifent is perhaps a good analogy: Eclipse may have slightly better reactors than Executor, but the ability to charge for yonks and fire it all though a single gun would have utility without being near the 'blow up shielded planets' bizzo.

Blowing up or "shattering" a planet is a bit vague. Hell as Mike has noted you can pretty much vaporize a planet without mass-scattering it.

at the E27-e28 watt power output range, and with around 8-24 hour timeframe (I'm being lazy here) it should be more than enough to generate the energy to shatter a planet more or less. Not as rapidly or as spectacularly as the Death Star, but it will still be fucked over pretty well.,

Ignore the "1/3" estimate and go with the statement that it can vapourize a continent. Vapourizing a continent is a miniscule energy event compared to destroying the entire planet, but if it honestly had 1/3 of the energy of the Death Star or even 1/3 of GBE, it would be able to easily vapourize an entire planet, and that would be a major plot point which would have been mentioned.

The DE sourcebook did specifically say that the superlaser was only a fraction of the power (1;/3 or 2/3 cant remember which) of a superlaser beam. It also specifically then mentioned that the ship only had one superlaser compared to the 8 that a DS had.

So your not talking about the Eclipse having 1/3 or 2/3 the power of the DS. You are talking about it having either 1/3 or 2/3 of the power of 1/8th of the DS total superlaser power.

Then to make it worse there is a vague statement that the single beam on the Eclipse is more sophisticated than the ones on the DS so it has superior performance than its mere size would indicate.

Baal wrote:The DE sourcebook did specifically say that the superlaser was only a fraction of the power (1;/3 or 2/3 cant remember which) of a superlaser beam. It also specifically then mentioned that the ship only had one superlaser compared to the 8 that a DS had.

So your not talking about the Eclipse having 1/3 or 2/3 the power of the DS. You are talking about it having either 1/3 or 2/3 of the power of 1/8th of the DS total superlaser power.

Then to make it worse there is a vague statement that the single beam on the Eclipse is more sophisticated than the ones on the DS so it has superior performance than its mere size would indicate.

It helps to read the responses before blurting out, for the fact of the matter someone did cover this before.

The point is what it claims to be and what it claims to do are far different things.

I'll check later but I'm pretty sure it was 2/3 (or maybe that was the EGW&T). Anyhow, I think its a foregone conclusion that the 2/3 bit can only be rationalized, it can't really be interpreted in any real quantitative way (vaguely appealing to 2/3 of something on the DS, but we don't know what.)