StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I know that the Base Delta Zero at least destroys all resource centers, but how much damage is done to the crust of a planet itself?

The surface of the planet is melted to the depth of several dozen meters to the very least and the athmosphere is blown away.

The exact damage isn't all that specific. There's certainly a lot of surface melting, but whether it's melted to any specific depth over the entire surface isn't known.

We do know that BDZ does so much damage to the planet's biosphere that it's completely uninhabitable (a feat requiring something like a billion megatons of energy). The damage is so extensive that it's more practical for refugees to colonize a new planet than to try to terraform the target planet for recolonization.

BDZ destroys virtually anything of value. Cities, factories, agricultural land, mines, even oceans (which are valuable food sources). The planet may still have mineral value, but extraction is presumably so difficult that it wouldn't be worth the expense.

I think it might depends on the ship that does it. The smallest warships capable of BDZ (such as Acclamator-class Troop Transports) might just barely render the planet uninhabitable, while larger ships probably inflict more damage. Really large battleships (such as Executor and Admiral Giel's flagship) might barely leave any remains.

Simon H.Johansen wrote:I think it might depends on the ship that does it. The smallest warships capable of BDZ (such as Acclamator-class Troop Transports) might just barely render the planet uninhabitable, while larger ships probably inflict more damage. Really large battleships (such as Executor and Admiral Giel's flagship) might barely leave any remains.

It's not a matter of what ship carries out the order; the requirements for BDZ are defined in the order: destroy all life and all planetary assets.

Less powerful ship types might require more time or multiple ships, but the requirements of the attack remain the same.

Pre-ICS BDZ: Destoy all life, all resources, no witnesses, no surviors. Although not as clearly defined, many believe this definition fits the post-ICS definiton of the BDZ.

Post-ICS BDZ: Melts the planets crust, turning it into a useless molten rock.

For some unknown reason, certain Rabid Trekkies like DS refuse to argue the ICS version, but when it does come time to argue BDZ, he willonlyargue the Imperial Sourcebook definition (the top definiton is from the Imp Sourcebook, right?), most likely because the ICS definiton clearly shuts down his arguments, and he just can't handle it.

Aside, a BDZ is a BDZ is a BDZ. You can't change how much damage a BDZ does on ships. It will always meet the above definitions, or it isn't a BDZ. The only difference in ships is the number neccesary, or the tiem required.

TrekWarsie wrote:I know that the Base Delta Zero at least destroys all resource centers, but how much damage is done to the crust of a planet itself?

It would have to be completely melted to a depth of at least several meters, over the entirety of the surface.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Pre-ICS BDZ: Destoy all life, all resources, no witnesses, no surviors. Although not as clearly defined, many believe this definition fits the post-ICS definiton of the BDZ.
...

The above defenition seems pretty comprehensive as stated. You don't get more destructive that *all* life and resources...

Actually, before the ICS, the Essential Chronology estalbished that BDZs reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag. The "Nar Shaddaa" assault was meant to be a BDZ operation, and the Chronology expressly indicated that Nar Shaddaa was to be reduced to molten slag.

And that was only by 3 dreadnaughts, 4 bulk cruisers, 2 carracks, and 16 or so 40-meter customs patrol cruisers.

Regarding the depht.. doznes of meters is probsably way too conservative. A medium TL bolt can punch through *twenty* meters of durasteel, and we know from canon that ISD Medium guns can easily vaporize nickel iron asteroids anywhere from 40 to 100 meters in diameter. And in Starfighter's of Adumar, a backwards and cut off planet like Adumar can put armament factories many tens to hundreds of meters belowground. Since the ICS suggests that the *upper crust* of a planet is reduced to molten slag (and the crust of most planets tends to be many tens of km thick) - multi-km depths is probably not unreasonable.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Regarding the depht.. doznes of meters is probsably way too conservative. A medium TL bolt can punch through *twenty* meters of durasteel, and we know from canon that ISD Medium guns can easily vaporize nickel iron asteroids anywhere from 40 to 100 meters in diameter. And in Starfighter's of Adumar, a backwards and cut off planet like Adumar can put armament factories many tens to hundreds of meters belowground. Since the ICS suggests that the *upper crust* of a planet is reduced to molten slag (and the crust of most planets tends to be many tens of km thick) - multi-km depths is probably not unreasonable.

This is supported by firepower estimates from the ICS, which would require enormous energies transferred to a target.

Incidentally, as I recall, we had used the one meter depth fairly arbitrarily as an attempt to mollify rabid-Trekkies. In actuality, since life has been discovered to a depth of more than a kilometer, if we use a literal translation of the requirements for a BDZ, then it must liquify the surface of a world to at least that depth.

It slags the upper crust. The depth depends on the target, since BDZ attacks may be used simply to wipe out a planets resources or to destroy underground armies.

Upper crust would (at least how I define it) be anything like 1/3 to 1/2 the total thickness of the planet's crust.

I could post the calcs I did for the Hutt Gambit BDZ again, if anyone's interested, but they're VERY conservative (particularily since they don't involve ISD's)

Incidentally, an Acclamator can easily render a planet uninhabitable in about 25-30 minutes, using the conservative interpretation of "per shot" (200 GT per quad turret, not per barrel) and assuming a refire rate of 1 volley per 2 seconds (what the medium ISD turrets from the EGW&T state as refire rate. It could easily be half this, given what DS turrets and typical ISD fire rates demonstrate.)

In the "hutt gambit" example, the estimated timeframe for naval operations (which would include a BDZ, but not any "mop up" operations, if such were employed - remember that the "troops" deployed were the imaginings of Baron Fel, who had never previously accomplished a BDZ op and actually DREADED the operation.) was fifteen minutes, and didnt even involve any Star Destroyers.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:The surface of the planet is melted to the depth of several dozen meters to the very least and the athmosphere is blown away.

Actually the wording is "the upper crust"
Sounds like alot more than a few meters to me.

That would make sense. How else do you wipe out all those pesky deep-metal deposits?

Well you still aren't going to wipe them out, no matter how hard you hit them. Its not as if a BDZ actually removes a sizable amount of material, it just melts it.

TrekWarsie wrote:I know that the Base Delta Zero at least destroys all resource centers, but how much damage is done to the crust of a planet itself?

Apparently not enough to satisfy Tarkin.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:That would make sense. How else do you wipe out all those pesky deep-metal deposits?

Melting the upper surface would basically put them out of reach, and a planet with a molten surface is going to take a long time to cool.

A base delta zero makes a planet completely unusable to people who can vaporize asteroids with light weaponry. They don't just put the stuff out of reach; they have to actually destroy it, or else it could still be mined. Lando Calrissian had no problems setting up a mining operation in harsh conditions like those on Nklon, for example.

Durandal wrote:A base delta zero makes a planet completely unusable to people who can vaporize asteroids with light weaponry. They don't just put the stuff out of reach; they have to actually destroy it, or else it could still be mined. Lando Calrissian had no problems setting up a mining operation in harsh conditions like those on Nklon, for example.

However only the side facing the sun was molten on that world. And he said that if Leia were buried in a bunker on the sun side there would be no way to reach her before the side rotated back into the dark.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Durandal wrote:A base delta zero makes a planet completely unusable to people who can vaporize asteroids with light weaponry. They don't just put the stuff out of reach; they have to actually destroy it, or else it could still be mined. Lando Calrissian had no problems setting up a mining operation in harsh conditions like those on Nklon, for example.

However only the side facing the sun was molten on that world. And he said that if Leia were buried in a bunker on the sun side there would be no way to reach her before the side rotated back into the dark.

Fair enough, but that was just an illustrative example. A society which can build installations in black hole clusters and mine asteroids with no trouble would have no problems mining a world whose surface was melted for raw materials. Those materials are destroyed, not simply rendered more difficult to get to.

Erm, how exactly would you destroy a mineral deposit except antimatter?