StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Forgive me if this is the paragon of ignorance, but just what do Star Wars ships and vehicles use for fuel? Do large capitol ships like Star Destroyers and mobile battle stations need to refuel? I know starfighters do, but what about repulsorcraft, or walkers. If I just asked the stupidest question you've heard in your life feel free to have at me.

Capital ships would need to refuel their reactants and for lesser systems that don't run from the hypermatter reactor.

Repulsorlifts don't need power to run.

Okay, but what IS the fuel. It would seem to me that walker mobility is quite similar to droids, so do they use some sort of scaled up electric power cell like a droid? In ANH, we see them fueling the X-Wings with a hose. So their fuel is either a liquid or gas, I would assume liquid. As for repulsorlifts, take the landspeeder for example. Doesn't the repulsor just keep it off the ground, while turbine looking things provide thrust?

Based off what we know:

They need a reactant to anhillate with the hypermatter. Given that the ICSs only depict one type of fuel silo, I believe this stuff is also what they eject for thrust. I further believe, based off my calc work and what the AOTC ICS says, that it is a type of complex mass used for these purposes. It is stored at extremly high densities, something like 1*10^7-1*10^8 kg/m^3 if you use the acclamators fuel silos for an ISD.

They need fuel for ejecta. See above.

They need fuel for their fusion reactors.

They need tibanna gas for coolant, whatever they use for lubricant and other stuff (not fuels, but just as critical)

And contrary to what the AOTC ICS says, repuslors do need energy, you see that in the movies (TPM when the tank is hit with the emp balls and tilts due to a loss of repulsor support)


Now how long they can go without refueling depends, we know there is a set time on consumbales, but that could mean fule for the ship, or food and whatnot.

I thought the hypermatter reactor was unique to the Death Star and capital ships/starfighters used a form of fusion. In Truce at Bakura it talks about Ssi-Ruuvi ships burning "heavy fusionables" Found my V&V guide, apparantly heavy walkers like the AT-ATs have something called a "fuel slug" some kind of solid reactant? Tibanna a coolant? I thought it was used to increase the firepower of blaster type weapons.

Lazy Raptor wrote:I thought the hypermatter reactor was unique to the Death Star

Negative. Even before the ICS came out there was evidence in the form of the Eclipse, Sovereigns, and Errant Venture that big ships used hypermatter. Hypermatter anhillation is how they power thier ships.

and capital ships/starfighters used a form of fusion.

They use small (small being a relative term) fusion reactors to create the conditions that let hypermatter anhillation occur. In other words, they power the big reactor.

In Truce at Bakura it talks about Ssi-Ruuvi ships burning "heavy fusionables"

Yes, thats a tricky one since basic fusion only happens with luight elements. So either fusion menas something else to them (distionary definition wise, it doesn't ahve top be hydrogen to helim type, could be other things), or perhaps they use some kind of complex mass fusion (no idea if that's even possible, so forgive me if its basically wanking to unknown capabilities)

Found my V&V guide, apparantly heavy walkers like the AT-ATs have something called a "fuel slug" some kind of solid reactant?

ICS cutaway indicates a nuclear reactor with the fule slugs moderating it.

Tibanna a coolant? I thought it was used to increase the firepower of blaster type weapons.

Kinda. Canon overrides official, so no, but if you want to tweak it to work, It is used as a coolant (as per one of the WEG galaxy guides), and since it cools the barrel, more energy can get put in without damaging the weapon, so the power increases

Ender wrote:

In Truce at Bakura it talks about Ssi-Ruuvi ships burning "heavy fusionables"

Yes, thats a tricky one since basic fusion only happens with luight elements. So either fusion menas something else to them (distionary definition wise, it doesn't ahve top be hydrogen to helim type, could be other things), or perhaps they use some kind of complex mass fusion (no idea if that's even possible, so forgive me if its basically wanking to unknown capabilities)

It could mean that they are using elements closer to Iron for fusion. So this could fit the 'basic nuclear fusion' scenario
This does not really make all that much sense though, as the energy released per fusion reaction gets less. As second box down shows.

Ender wrote:And contrary to what the AOTC ICS says, repuslors do need energy, you see that in the movies (TPM when the tank is hit with the emp balls and tilts due to a loss of repulsor support)

Or, at the very least, the repulsorlift control circuits.

Bill Door wrote:

Ender wrote:

In Truce at Bakura it talks about Ssi-Ruuvi ships burning "heavy fusionables"

Yes, thats a tricky one since basic fusion only happens with luight elements. So either fusion menas something else to them (distionary definition wise, it doesn't ahve top be hydrogen to helim type, could be other things), or perhaps they use some kind of complex mass fusion (no idea if that's even possible, so forgive me if its basically wanking to unknown capabilities)

It could mean that they are using elements closer to Iron for fusion. So this could fit the 'basic nuclear fusion' scenario
This does not really make all that much sense though, as the energy released per fusion reaction gets less. As second box down shows.

Problem is the term heavy doesn't typically apply to elements until you start talking about your transuranics and such, stuff well beyond iron.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Repulsorlifts don't need power to run.

Whatever gave you that idea? If they lift a ship off the ground, they do work. They use energy whenever they do work, so they require power.

Lazy Raptor wrote:Okay, but what IS the fuel.

I don't know of any specific sources on this point. Supposedly Star Wars reactors can run on virtually anything, which suggests to me that they have the means to directly convert matter into energy. They might use extremely dense elements or even material from black holes for fuel in extremely energy-intensive applications (like the Death Star superlasers).

Repulsorlifts can hover without power being actively supplied, as in while the vehicle has been turned off. That's what I meant.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Repulsorlifts can hover without power being actively supplied, as in while the vehicle has been turned off. That's what I meant.

And that's perfectly legitimate, since they're not doing any work in such situations.

Ender wrote:Problem is the term heavy doesn't typically apply to elements until you start talking about your transuranics and such, stuff well beyond iron.

Which do not produce energy when fused.

The interpretation I was using was that it was elements on the heavier end of the energy releasing fusion reactions. This fits with the usage as a fuel and the fusionable part.
However I acknowledge that this doesn't fit with the typical useage of heavy in dealing with nuclear reactions.

The main form of power in SW is, indeed, hypermatter. The DS is merely unique for the sheer scale of the reactor.

What hypermatter is.. We're not sure. It's a vital component of the hyperdrive, and is millions of times more dense than neutronium. Beyond that.. Not sure.

Ted C wrote:

Lazy Raptor wrote:Okay, but what IS the fuel.

I don't know of any specific sources on this point. Supposedly Star Wars reactors can run on virtually anything, which suggests to me that they have the means to directly convert matter into energy. They might use extremely dense elements or even material from black holes for fuel in extremely energy-intensive applications (like the Death Star superlasers).

Also suggested by the ICS as well as way back in the canon novelization. (And the mandel blueprints, if you consider those official.)

Hypermatter appears to be a super-dense annihilation reactant.

Ted C wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Repulsorlifts don't need power to run.

Whatever gave you that idea? If they lift a ship off the ground, they do work. They use energy whenever they do work, so they require power.

It comes from the AOTC ICS

It is notable that hypermatter particles are, in fact, faster-than-light particles, and that while they can apparently be stored at insane densities, this is not necessarily an indicator that they are unique in that respect, because SW tech typically demonstrates such things as increadible density in storage.
It would be unlikely to find a hypermatter-annhialation reactor on something much smaller than an Acclamator. I seriously doubt that something as small as, say, a Nebulon B frigate would carry that type of power source, although I don't honestly know. Some form of fusion reactor can be found in something as small as a gonk droid, IIRC.
TIE fighters are noted as using a radioactive gas for fuel.
There is some discrepancy in whether repulsors require power, perhaps some forms do and others do not. OTOH, the TPM example of a tank being hit with the blue glowy balls might just be an indicator of physical damage to the repulsor, or that the balls' effect can incapacitate repulsors in a manner other than destroying their power supply. The exact nature of repulsors isn't clear. This is due in part to references to 'repulsorlift systems' that clearly include turbines and thrusters.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Hypermatter appears to be a super-dense annihilation reactant.

It is also a complex-mass "ballast" which is used in conjunction with the hyperdrive to convert the mass of a ship from a real quantity to an imaginary quantity, which transforms the ship from baryonic matter to tachyonic matter, thusly skipping the lightspeed barrier and going faster than light.

By the way: Ender, I got the impression from Mike's descriptions of hypermatter as well as the ICS and its function that the hypermatter was somehow not only converted into energy but also used by the hyperdrive to achieve faster-than-c velocities. Due to its complex mass properties and the ICS schematic illustrating it as being contained in the hyperdrive core, I assumed it didn't take up much space, and while the hypermatter made up the "ballast" (as Mike describes it) to shift the vessel into tachyons, and the reactant to produce fuel, the fuel silos' contents were only propellant to be accelerated out of the engines, and independent of the ship's energy source.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:Hypermatter appears to be a super-dense annihilation reactant.

By the way: Ender, I got the impression from Mike's descriptions of hypermatter as well as the ICS and its function that the hypermatter was somehow not only converted into energy but also used by the hyperdrive to achieve faster-than-c velocities.

Yeah, near as I can tell saxton was basing it off one of the negative inertia FTL methods

Due to its complex mass properties and the ICS schematic illustrating it as being contained in the hyperdrive core, I assumed it didn't take up much space, and while the hypermatter made up the "ballast" (as Mike describes it) to shift the vessel into tachyons, and the reactant to produce fuel, the fuel silos' contents were only propellant to be accelerated out of the engines, and independent of the ship's energy source.

We already know of STL complex mass. Its my belief that while it uses hypermatter for FTL propulsion, it carries STL complex matter for fuel ejecta and for reactant. M loading the fuel at the last second allows greater thrust for a minimal mass carried, and I base the reactant thing off the fact we see no other tanks and that that might be how they get around e-mc^2, take a kilo of hypermatter and a kilo of complex matter, shift them so they are effectivly a ton of each at the last second, and you get plenty of energy released. Course I'm unsure if the physics hold in that last case.

Yes, but my question is why require two distinct amounts of complex matter, when hypermatter is the only thing said to do both (annhiliation for energy and hyperdrive). The stuff in the fuel-silos is just said to be ultra-dense, so why can't that merely be propellant.

Perhaps the hypermatter is contained in the hyperdrive core/reactor core always, like the fuel rods of a nuclear reactor? This explains the lack of fuel tanks for the reactor on the Death Star.

That just leaves the "ultra-dense" fuel silos, which could be simple reaction thrust propellant.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yes, but my question is why require two distinct amounts of complex matter, when hypermatter is the only thing said to do both (annhiliation for energy and hyperdrive). The stuff in the fuel-silos is just said to be ultra-dense, so why can't that merely be propellant.

Perhaps the hypermatter is contained in the hyperdrive core/reactor core always, like the fuel rods of a nuclear reactor? This explains the lack of fuel tanks for the reactor on the Death Star.

Totally off comparison. the hypermatter reactor is an anhillation reactor, what you proose is that it has all of its reactant and the destructive element suspended in the core at the same time, and thus it is a bomb waiting to go. this is inconsistent with what we see, for example the ion cannon hits at hoth would cause them to loose containment with your scenario. that didn't happen.

Ender wrote:Totally off comparison. the hypermatter reactor is an anhillation reactor, what you proose is that it has all of its reactant and the destructive element suspended in the core at the same time, and thus it is a bomb waiting to go. this is inconsistent with what we see, for example the ion cannon hits at hoth would cause them to loose containment with your scenario. that didn't happen.

Nothing says that annhiliation means M/AM-style annhiliation. For all we know, it requires energy, as supplied by fusion, to cause the process which converts the hypermatter into energy, which, when cut-off, stops the annhiliation process. We don't know how, such that we know that it is, and the hypermatter is totally converted into energy, hence annhiliation. The various hypermatter explosions can be thought of as analogous to reactor melt-downs, where the regulatory processes of the reactor are damaged or malfunctioning, and the reactor continues to accelerate the annhiliation process.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Ender wrote:Totally off comparison. the hypermatter reactor is an anhillation reactor, what you proose is that it has all of its reactant and the destructive element suspended in the core at the same time, and thus it is a bomb waiting to go. this is inconsistent with what we see, for example the ion cannon hits at hoth would cause them to loose containment with your scenario. that didn't happen.

Nothing says that annhiliation means M/AM-style annhiliation. For all we know, it requires energy, as supplied by fusion, to cause the process which converts the hypermatter into energy, which, when cut-off, stops the annhiliation process.

You definately need to explain this theory more, as right now I have no idea what you are talking about.

We don't know how, such that we know that it is, and the hypermatter is totally converted into energy, hence annhiliation. The various hypermatter explosions can be thought of as analogous to reactor melt-downs, where the regulatory processes of the reactor are damaged or malfunctioning, and the reactor continues to accelerate the annhiliation process.

So your theory is that while the energy to do the conversion remains the same, in increase in the fuel to be converted makes it release more energy (basing this off what you said and the destruction of DS2)?