Page 1 of 1

Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-13 11:13pm
by Boeing 757


Saw this and thought that it is slightly amusing. :) Most of us are probably already familiar with what the Death Star can accomplish. Any comments?

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-14 11:33am
by Crossroads Inc.
Bloody Awesome stuff.. I always enjoy BIG things broken down into aspects most people can understand.
I think the best part of this for me, was seeing:
A: how big the death star would look in Low Earth Orbit (Fricking AWESOME!)
B: knowing how much matter needs to be annihilated to ire the Super laser (An Everest full of matter, should that become a standard uint perhaps? "Engineer!! I need at least Five Everest's of energy!

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-19 10:14am
by Vance
That guy explains the minimum energy you'd need to destroy a planet, the e32 figure. Thats enough energy to accelerate the planets mass to escape velocity, or ~11km/s. The energy needed to blow up Alderaan so violently is about a million times greater.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-19 12:33pm
by Eleas
Vance wrote:That guy explains the minimum energy you'd need to destroy a planet, the e32 figure. Thats enough energy to accelerate the planets mass to escape velocity, or ~11km/s. The energy needed to blow up Alderaan so violently is about a million times greater.
Hence why it's a napkin calculation. Of course, the Death Star isn't the problem when trying to make sense of Star Wars: the problem is that much of the rest of the galaxy is so underdeveloped and unsettled.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-19 01:23pm
by Boeing 757
Eleas wrote:
Vance wrote:That guy explains the minimum energy you'd need to destroy a planet, the e32 figure. Thats enough energy to accelerate the planets mass to escape velocity, or ~11km/s. The energy needed to blow up Alderaan so violently is about a million times greater.
Hence why it's a napkin calculation. Of course, the Death Star isn't the problem when trying to make sense of Star Wars: the problem is that much of the rest of the galaxy is so underdeveloped and unsettled.
How so? Most of the worlds in the original trilogy are supposedly the backwater crapshoot of space. I don't see a problem at all.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-21 10:44am
by Eleas
Boeing 757 wrote:How so? Most of the worlds in the original trilogy are supposedly the backwater crapshoot of space. I don't see a problem at all.
There's simply too little tonnage in SW space, for my money. Given what the Death Star says about the scope of industry in the SW universe, the dearth of huge ships and enormous civilian settlements is hard to explain. And I'm referring to the EU more than what we see in the movies.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-21 08:44pm
by biostem
Eleas wrote:
Boeing 757 wrote:How so? Most of the worlds in the original trilogy are supposedly the backwater crapshoot of space. I don't see a problem at all.
There's simply too little tonnage in SW space, for my money. Given what the Death Star says about the scope of industry in the SW universe, the dearth of huge ships and enormous civilian settlements is hard to explain. And I'm referring to the EU more than what we see in the movies.

Well, I know at least a few civilizations are staunchly environmentalist - like the Wookies and Ithorians (Hammer-heads), so maybe there's a pretty strong tendency to not reshape the worlds w/ too many structures.

At the same time, it is a whole galaxy we're talking about here, (more if you include the satellite ones), so even millions of ships might be able to go for a while without running into one-another. Plus, other than the streaks of light or tunnel/wormhole effect while traveling in hyperspace, has it ever been established that you can actually see another vessel while flying in it? I mean, the navicomp may simply make sure not to collide w/ any other ships, and they may have passed dozens of other ships without knowing it...

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-21 09:43pm
by Boeing 757
biostem wrote:
Eleas wrote:
Boeing 757 wrote:How so? Most of the worlds in the original trilogy are supposedly the backwater crapshoot of space. I don't see a problem at all.
There's simply too little tonnage in SW space, for my money. Given what the Death Star says about the scope of industry in the SW universe, the dearth of huge ships and enormous civilian settlements is hard to explain. And I'm referring to the EU more than what we see in the movies.

Well, I know at least a few civilizations are staunchly environmentalist - like the Wookies and Ithorians (Hammer-heads), so maybe there's a pretty strong tendency to not reshape the worlds w/ too many structures.

At the same time, it is a whole galaxy we're talking about here, (more if you include the satellite ones), so even millions of ships might be able to go for a while without running into one-another.
Indeed. In all six films we have been introduced to a total of fifteen different planets; most of them located in the Outer Rim and which were either secluded outposts (Bespin & Mustafar), member-worlds which consisted of environmentalists (Naboo & Kaskyyyk), Rebel bases or frontier worlds with small populations like Tatooine. Only Coruscant and Alderaan really can be said to be worlds of high significance, and Coruscant has so many ships in orbit about itself that it's hard not to see any portion of space not blotted out by massive transport ships. I'm not sure what is in the EU though. There are definitely a few city-worlds mentioned here and there in some of the books and comics, but I doubt that they are the norm. Have any of the books ever gone into detail about the level of urban sprawl? It's not really a subject that the EU cares to explore frankly, so it's hard to glean anything from it.
Plus, other than the streaks of light or tunnel/wormhole effect while traveling in hyperspace, has it ever been established that you can actually see another vessel while flying in it? I mean, the navicomp may simply make sure not to collide w/ any other ships, and they may have passed dozens of other ships without knowing it...
Good question. Space is big for one, so the odds of actually experiencing a collision are rather slim. I would also like to believe that someone in the SW galaxy has already considered the advantages of traffic control out of interest of safety, and we know that at least in orbit around planets such systems exist. We might also glean something by looking at their FTL sensor/comm abilities. There is an incident in the Clone Wars series wherein the Malevolence detects ships in real space while it is still in hyperspace. If their sensors can pull something like that off, will it stretch our credibility to presume that they could detect other ships which move within hyperspace while the ship scanning is still also in hyperspace? My guess is no, but there is no guarantee that this must be so.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-21 10:02pm
by Skywalker_T-65
At least some of the Core are City-Worlds (in the EU). Off the top of my head...Coruscant, Humbarine, Alsakan...I think a couple others. Generally speaking, the Core is where you would find the really developed worlds, though there are exceptions to the rule like Taris in the Rim (KOTOR I's city-world).

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-22 12:56pm
by Patroklos
Eleas wrote: There's simply too little tonnage in SW space, for my money. Given what the Death Star says about the scope of industry in the SW universe, the dearth of huge ships and enormous civilian settlements is hard to explain. And I'm referring to the EU more than what we see in the movies.
If your only measure for follow on assumptions is the existance of the Death Star it matters in what circumstances you see its existance in. If its a one off project of a meglomaniac it means one thing, if it is a relatively mundane construction on signfificant in that they decided to put all that material in one place then its another.

For example China built the great wall largely within the span of two generations, it did not mean fortifications of that scale were routine then or even 500 years later.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-22 01:00pm
by Eleas
Patroklos wrote:If your only measure for follow on assumptions is the existance of the Death Star it matters in what circumstances you see its existance in. If its a one off project of a meglomaniac it means one thing, if it is a relatively mundane construction on signfificant in that they decided to put all that material in one place then its another.

For example China built the great wall largely within the span of two generations, it did not mean fortifications of that scale were routine then or even 500 years later.
Fair enough, but China didn't manage to build the Great Wall in secret. Had they done so, it would have been indicative of something being massively out of place somewhere, which is my point.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-22 01:53pm
by Formless
Skywalker_T-65 wrote:At least some of the Core are City-Worlds (in the EU). Off the top of my head...Coruscant, Humbarine, Alsakan...I think a couple others. Generally speaking, the Core is where you would find the really developed worlds, though there are exceptions to the rule like Taris in the Rim (KOTOR I's city-world).
There is also Nar Shaddaa, the moon over the Hutt homeworld, which is built up to the same degree as Coruscant. Apparently it suffers from massive and longstanding urban decay presumably because the Hutts don't give two fucks. Kinda like Space Detroit.

According to Wookiepedia Corellia (Han's home planet) remains un-urbanized because even though its a core world they moved all of their manufacturing into space. Presumably this also includes much of their population centers as well, since you don't want your daily commute to include a trip to and from orbit.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-22 02:49pm
by StarSword
biostem wrote:Plus, other than the streaks of light or tunnel/wormhole effect while traveling in hyperspace, has it ever been established that you can actually see another vessel while flying in it? I mean, the navicomp may simply make sure not to collide w/ any other ships, and they may have passed dozens of other ships without knowing it...
One of the kids' books, Boba Fett: Crossfire set immediately after AOTC, had Aurra Sing's ship shadowing an Acclamator-class through hyperspace within visual range (not touching whether this is a good idea). It looked like a yellow star out the viewport but Boba realized it had to be another ship because it was keeping pace with them.

I don't know what it is about weird trivia like that that sticks with me when I can't remember what Dad said to me five minutes ago...

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-25 01:02pm
by Patroklos
I assumed he was talking about seeing ships not in hyperspace while you travel in it, sort of like how ST vessels can see real space vessels while in warp. I think the answer is pretty clearly no, with the example of Thrawn having to guess where Luke's X-wing would be traveling to trap it via gravity well and Luke obviously didn't see the gravity well let alone the star destroyer. Given that ships don't seem to be able to detect and avoid unexpected generated gravity wells either given that example I wonder if the navi computer is totally dependant on hyperaccurate gravitational maps and is pretty much just dead reconning to manuever in hyperspace.

As for seeing other ships in hyperspace traveling with you, that sort of reminds me of babylon five. Don't we get a pretty good look out the windows of the rebel ships during the move to Endor while they are in hyperspace? I seem to recall seeing the MC drop out through the cockpit without any ships being around them visibly, but I also don't remember if they were in front of the formation or not.

Re: Death Star science

Posted: 2013-10-25 08:45pm
by Boeing 757
Patroklos wrote:I assumed he was talking about seeing ships not in hyperspace while you travel in it, sort of like how ST vessels can see real space vessels while in warp. I think the answer is pretty clearly no, with the example of Thrawn having to guess where Luke's X-wing would be traveling to trap it via gravity well and Luke obviously didn't see the gravity well let alone the star destroyer. Given that ships don't seem to be able to detect and avoid unexpected generated gravity wells either given that example I wonder if the navi computer is totally dependant on hyperaccurate gravitational maps and is pretty much just dead reconning to manuever in hyperspace.
There is one episode from season one of the Clone Wars wherein the Malevolence detects Republican ships waiting for it in real space while it itself is still in hyperspace. The Republic fleet also managed to detect the Malevolence at nearly the same moment. Granted, there was only a few seconds of warning time, but their sensors can definitely detect ships while in hyperspace to real space, real space to hyperspace and two ships both in hyperspace.

The films are even more generous in regards to FTL sensors, such as when the Empire tracked the Rebel fleet approaching Endor for at least a minute as I recall.
As for seeing other ships in hyperspace traveling with you, that sort of reminds me of babylon five. Don't we get a pretty good look out the windows of the rebel ships during the move to Endor while they are in hyperspace? I seem to recall seeing the MC drop out through the cockpit without any ships being around them visibly, but I also don't remember if they were in front of the formation or not.
The Millenium Falcon was definitely at the forefront of the formation. The rest of the fleet popped out only seconds behind the Falcon, which speaks of a high level of coordination. There are also several instances from the Clone Wars series in which ships were seen in formation side by side to one another.