Endurance of Star Wars ships

[IronStar]

Sorry if i should have posted this in general SF and if these questions have long since been discussed.
So recently i ve fully read the latest IoM vs Wars debate here(or not latest- but couldnt find anything later than this of 2010 so far) but i dont even want to touch this matter here AT ALL.

Due to some comparasing info presented there by Connor i have some questions concerning general endurance of SW ships.
1)Fuel consumtion, storage and logistics problems connected with it- here, and in other places i ve seen statements about SW ships being able to operate for days if they save fuel and for hours or even less if their reactors are at peak power or close to it. And there are also ICS numbers for fuel consumption - 40000 tons pers second at peak level for Venator and 2500 tons per sec for Munificient(not specified whether peak or average). I ve done some calcs but cause i completely failed to find weight of SW ships and\or fuel capacity these are purest speculations.
Fuel is said to be very dense, so i ll try to play with nubers and assume venator fuel capacity to be 30 million tons.
At peak power usage it will be enought for 750 seconds. I really dont know what are minimum consumption numbers so still have to speculate-At 100 tons pers sec it will be 3 days. It is all given 2 years of consumables. I know that with a speed of SW ftl one doesnt need huge endurance but these numbers are still quite low.
And given their probable fuel capacity and stuff ships will need fuel tankers support during BDZ operations.
So my questions are- how long can ship operate on various consumption levels, average consumtion level during fights(and how it affects fighting capabilities and fight duration). And also- is it true that SW cargo ships are crappy?

2)Repair and maintenance - what are capabilities of ship crew to repair the ship? What degree of damage will require dry dock?

3) Shields and hull durability- for how long can ship survive fire from a ship of comparable firepower?(i ve heard that its within seconds or minutes.

[Borgholio]

1. Depends on the ship. Hypermatter is definitely insanely dense so burning 40k tons per second is practically nothing. We never see SW ships refueling aside from the smaller fighters and freighters, so it's possible the larger capital ships can go for a long time before resupplying. Look at modern carriers as an example. The escort fleet needs to refuel often but the carrier can go for years without refueling, and is limited only by the food supply on board.

2. Probably similar to real life as well. Minor damage to hull plating can probably be ignored. Wiring shorts and small fires can be put out, repaired and re-painted on the fly. Having an engine bell shot off or a hole put straight through a gun turret will likely require a drydock.

3. Depends on the combat situation. An Executor vs a Nebulon B will be measured in seconds. Two Star Destroyers duking it out at close range it'll be several minutes at least.

[IronStar]

1. Fuel density doesnt mean exact tonnage here and we dont know how much "insanely dense" is- how many tons can a ship have on board is still limited by some factors. As i said i ve tried to find numbers for SW ships weight but could not. And these 30 million tons- actually it once long ago was told to be weight of the star destroyer, but this number can be bullshit. And as i said- i ve seen some statements about SW ships bad fuel consumption- just want more precise info.

3. As i said in post- ships of comparable firepower.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Even for ships of comparable firepower it differs.

In X-Wing: Isard's Revenge for instance there are at least two instances of ISD-IIs fighting each other, and in both cases a single "full broadside" was enough to collapse that shield (starboard shields for instance) with enough shots left over to do minor damage to hulls and weapon batteries.

In the second case, the Rebel ISD is able to reinforce their shields to completely stop the broadside without them going down.

[IronStar]

"Rebel ISD is able to reinforce their shields to completely stop the broadside without them going down"

It is possible that they just directed more energy to shields in a second case or to weapons in first. So if its true- what about the same with for example medium or low power to weapons or shields and how that is going to affect fuel reserves?

with enough shots left over to do minor damage to hulls and weapon batteries

Are we talking about heavy turbos or medium?

[Eternal_Freedom]

"Rebel ISD is able to reinforce their shields to completely stop the broadside without them going down"

It is possible that they just directed more energy to shields in a second case or to weapons in first. So if its true- what about the same with for example medium or low power to weapons or shields and how that is going to affect fuel reserves?

In the second case, where they reincofrce the shields I would think it's obvious that they divert power to them.

As for the first case, it awas an Imperial ISD-II engaging a Rebel ISD-II and a VSD-II. Since both ships where able to take down the shields in one salvo I would imagine they were left at normal settings.

with enough shots left over to do minor damage to hulls and weapon batteries

Are we talking about heavy turbos or medium?

It says something like "the ships weapons on both sides cut loose." Which implies they fired everything they had. Given they were outnumbered and fighting on two fronts I can't think why they wouldn't use all their heavy turbolasers.

[IronStar]

In the second case, where they reincofrce the shields I would think it's obvious that they divert power to them.

As for the first case, it awas an Imperial ISD-II engaging a Rebel ISD-II and a VSD-II. Since both ships where able to take down the shields in one salvo I would imagine they were left at normal settings.

VSD II participated there- but ISD-II didnt spare didnt share its firepower between them at a moment of full broadside shot?
And about both ships- did rebel ISD-II shoot back with similar results?
One full broadside to disable shields from one SW universe source- i dont know if this can be the starting point for describing endurance in combat but still quite conforms "average seconds to minutes" endurance timeframe that i encountered.

Which implies they fired everything they had. Given they were outnumbered and fighting on two fronts

Is it the same battle?
But what about recharge time for heavy turbos? They have just made a full salvo- obviously including heavy turbos and they shot instantly after shields have fallen. From what i know heavy turbos definitely need more time to recharge than this- perhaps it is possibe that they ve just lowered power settings for this shot- cause otherwise armor seems....too tought(i really dont think that even medium powered heavy turbo is going to do minor damage to the hull).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yes, it was the same battle. Yes, the Imperial ISD split fire, port side at one ship and staboard at the other.

This particular book makes no mention of turbolaser recharge times.

[Crazedwraith]

It's an X-Wing book. I don't think it ever distinguishes between turbolaser types anyway. It goes with '60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannon' as the ISD's armament.

[IronStar]

Yes, it was the same battle. Yes, the Imperial ISD split fire, port side at one ship and staboard at the other

So full frontal attack utilizing greater amount of ISD firepower would have done even more.

It goes with '60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannon' as the ISD's armament.

Well, if it refers to turrets and doesnt count every single barrel on each turret it may be accurate

And it is still uses one source which is not enough for just a bit more general picture(sorry- bad habit of being a 40k fan with its inconsistency).

[Vance]

Several hours of operation at "peak performance", like combat, thousands of G, or hyperspeed. Extrapolating from the numbers in the cross section books and assuming that ships must dedicate all of the reactor output to their engines to perform peak acceleration suggests the dry-mass of the ships would be dwarfed by the fuel that they carry. A Star Destroyer for instance probably carries around a billion metric tons of hypermatter and has a dry-mass of a few hundred million tons.

[IronStar]

So hours at peak are true. Billion tons of reactant is damn lot but according to my calcs (assuming billion tons and 40k tons per sec- 6 hours and 11 days for 1000 t per sec) it cant be less at all- otherwise peak perfomance would have been measured in seconds. But it is still not that good- as i see SW ships really have fuel consumption problems(however its compensated by ftl speeds). Also given that completion of hardcore BDZ operations within hours requires peak weapon power it can make ships really vulnerable without tankers support.

[StarSword]

According to the novel Death Star hypermatter doesn't work the way this thread seems to think it works. Rather than being fuel carried aboard ship, it's exotic matter that naturally exists at FTL speeds in hyperspace, then is annihilated automatically when it's pulled into realspace. Wookieepedia then cites the AOTC ICS for a statement that the hypermatter reaction is contained by power generated from fusion reactors.

Given that we're only once ever shown an ISD having to be resupplied (and that was crew consumables in Dark Force Rising), I posit that their endurance is in fact functionally unlimited. They'd need light elements for the fusion reactors and that's about it.

[Batman]

If memory serves Wars capital ships cheat by using 'hypermatter' for fuel which not only has a ludicrous fuel density but also parks most if not all of the mass in hyperspace so the ship it's technically in doesn't have to worry about 'how in Valen's name are we supposed to move that kind of mass?'

And assuming your 1000t/sec figure, assuming all of it goes to guns gives me 21.53TT/sec of firepower which even for a single ISD is way in excess of what is needed for a BDZ?

[Borgholio]

There is also the curious lack of mention of fuel depots or supply lines in the films. You'd think that'd be a prime target for the rebels the Imperial starfleet needed to refuel that often. The only resource mining that I can recall offhand is Bespin, which provides fuel for blasters and turbolasers, not for engines or power generation.

[IronStar]

hypermatter doesn't work the way this thread seems to think it works.

As i understand it is collected while ship is travelling in hyper and that storage is not unlimited. But even assume that theres no need to store hypermatter it still needs smth to anihilate- reactant, and we know how much of it is anihilated in some ships.

or a single ISD is way in excess of what is needed for a BDZ

BDZ can vary, and i meant hardcore one- not where only cities or stuff are destroyed(which is possible) but the planet turned into lifeless rock forever in mere hours which requires far more than that as i know.

There is also the curious lack of mention of fuel depots or supply lines in the films

Well, SW is far not only about films. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_tanker or this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Calamarian_Tanker i think it is possible to find more.

[InsaneTD]

Well it is after Disney's little announcement a couple weeks ago.

Where are this numbers from?

[StarSword]

Well it is after Disney's little announcement a couple weeks ago.

Reread the announcement. All they actually said was that Leland Chee was going to have a committee helping him keep the canon instead of being a one-man show.

Where are this numbers from?

Primarily the tech book Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections by Curtis Saxton, same physicist Mike cites on the main site for firepower numbers.

[IronStar]

So, i think that there is no more information on my questions. If there actually is- i will be very pleased to hear it.

Then i have another question about shields which i could not find definite answer- just some rumors- do SW particle shields have problems with massive(once even seen slow-moving notice) objects? As i know shields must be lowered before for example shuttle or smth may fly into hangar.

[Borgholio]

do SW particle shields have problems with massive(once even seen slow-moving notice) objects?

As with any shields, there are limits to what they can resist. The Falcon resisted hitting small rocks and asteroid chunks at high speeds. An asteroid the size of a few football fields got through the shields of a Star Destroyer and wiped out the bridge. After the Death Star was destroyed, the Executor absorbed the impact of three normal Star Destroyers when they came out of hyperspace too close to it. So it really depends.

[IronStar]

An asteroid the size of a few football fields got through the shields of a Star Destroyer

Sounds familiar, is it from films?

the Executor absorbed the impact of three normal Star Destroyers when they came out of hyperspace too close to it

I ve know about this incident- it is from some comic book as i know. Remember witnessing an argument about it long ago where someone stated these ships to move at a speed close to c based on their hyperspace exit.

[StarSword]

An asteroid the size of a few football fields got through the shields of a Star Destroyer

Sounds familiar, is it from films?

Yes, part of the Hoth asteroid field sequence in The Empire Strikes Back, I forget how long after the Falcon went and hid inside the not-a-cave on that dwarf planet. ISD takes an asteroid dead-center on the command tower, then cut to Vader teleconferencing with some of Death Squadron's captains and one of them suffers a dropped call. It's right before Vader has to talk to Palpy and has the Executor head back out of the asteroid field.

[IronStar]

While reading some vs debates here i found another notion of bad fuel consumption, this time it is more particular.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... ds+vs+Vong

hours is generally the fastest *I've* ever heard of STarships running at. As a benchmark I think Curtis said an ISD had a 'canon' fuel supply of around 10,000 seconds so that gives us a rough idea of intended, max power endurance.

So 10000 sec at peak for an ISD, and as i understand this number originates from Curtis Saxton but from where can it be in particular? Also in same topic

Going by EU data I've seen ISDs range from a mere 365,000 tons to a million tons

[Borgholio]

40000 tons pers second at peak level

I think I found the flaw in the math. It's not actually 40k tons per second. It's the EQUIVALENT of 40k tons per second. Remember that hypermatter is stored in hyperspace so there really are no fuel tanks on a Star Destroyer. Indeed looking at a cross section of the Death Star, you see no tanks at all...and you better believe that it consumes more than 40k tons per second when firing the superlaser.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hypermatter

Couple notes of mention in the link.

1. Hypermatter is contained in hyperspace, not realspace.

2. It is drawn into realspace and almost immediately destroyed to generate energy.

3. Even a fighter's hyperdrive uses 6.2kg per SECOND equivalent of this stuff...meaning it can travel maybe 30 minutes in hyperspace before running dry (assuming same fuel capacity as an equally large modern fighter, the F-14 Tomcat).

So it's quite clear that if the fuel is not even stored on the ship but drawn out of hyperspace, range can be practically unlimited. Furthermore:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial ... _Destroyer

Specs mention 6 years of consumables...but no mention of fuel capacity or range? Not a minor detail to omit, unless it is similar to modern nuclear warships where even the carriers run out of weapons after 16 days of sustained operations and have to resupply but have enough nuclear fuel to last for a decade...so mentioning steaming range is pointless.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I recall the AOTC and ROTS ICS books mentioning "max hyperspace range" for fighters and other ships. The little Delta-7 with hyperspace ring Obi Wan uses had a range of something like 65,000 light years. Some of the CIS frigates could reach 250,000, which since they are able to travel to one of the GFFA's satellite galaxy sounds about right.

Actually, that's probably a pretty good benchmark. The Munificent frigate entry in the ICS records that that particular vessel was built at one of the InterGalactic Banking Clan's secret space stations half-way between the galaxy and it's nearest satellite galaxy. Using the MW as a reference that means those ships can do 80-100,000 light year trips without refuelling.