StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am wondering what people think of this debate subject. The first Deathstar was 80 km in radius if I understand correctly. If I did my math correctly, the death star should have a volume of 2.145E+15 m^3.

If Howander's Calculations are aproximtaely correct, The Volume of a Stardestroyer should be this:
Volume of a 1600m x 900m x 200m triangular prism: 9.6E7 m^3

By dividing the socoind number into the first
You get 2.2+15 M^3 or 22,340,214. Basially, you can probably build millions of Stardestroyers for the cost of the Death Star. Would not the millions of ships be a much more effective tool. According to most people here, a Star destroyer can slag the surface of a planet giving a few hours and gives tons of ships which you can plant in orbit of planets you think "Might" be bad. I don't see what the Death Star really gives you if a Stardestroyer can allready scorch a planet.

What's up with the title? I can't make it out.

This is the starkest piece of evidence that the Imperial Starfleet is vastly undersized even by the most generous EU estimates, and the NRDF is so absurd to be nearly unmentionable.

This calculation doesn't even take into account the fact that the DS is going to be vastly more expensive than a pure volume ratio will indicate since it's larger and probably has extremely advanced systems on board.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What's up with the title? I can't make it out.

Sorry, I pasted and it was pasted in the wrong section and I did not notice it. I corrected it.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:This is the starkest piece of evidence that the Imperial Starfleet is vastly undersized even by the most generous EU estimates, and the NRDF is so absurd to be nearly unmentionable.

Why did they use so few ships when fighting the Rebels in "Return of the Jedi"? I think we can blame Lucas on these numbers more than anybody else.

IIRC, the ISB says, that the DeathStar cost the same as "scores of sector-groups". What would mean 12-96 sector-groups, otherwise they would have talked of "hundreds of sector-groups".

And i once had a discussion with Crd.Wilson about the millions of ISD one could have built for a single DS and got my ass handed to me (i was the one claiming that 22 million ISDs for the empire were possible because of the DS).

Kitsune wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:This is the starkest piece of evidence that the Imperial Starfleet is vastly undersized even by the most generous EU estimates, and the NRDF is so absurd to be nearly unmentionable.

Why did they use so few ships when fighting the Rebels in "Return of the Jedi"? I think we can blame Lucas on these numbers more than anybody else.

I think the Emperor brought just enough ships to keep the Rebel fleet from fleeing. The Death Star was suppose to do the bulk of the killing. The shield was not supposed to be brought down, so the Rebels would have been cornered between the shield and the Imperial Fleet, as it happened in the first place.

Comosicus wrote: I think the Emperor brought just enough ships to keep the Rebel fleet from fleeing. The Death Star was suppose to do the bulk of the killing. The shield was not supposed to be brought down, so the Rebels would have been cornered between the shield and the Imperial Fleet, as it happened in the first place.

I heard that reasoning but I think I would have, as an Admiral, keep a fleet of hundreds of Star Destroyers at the edge of the system.

Kitsune wrote:I am wondering what people think of this debate subject. The first Deathstar was 80 km in diameter

160, actually.

YT300000 wrote:

Kitsune wrote:I am wondering what people think of this debate subject. The first Deathstar was 80 km in diameter

160, actually.

I was thinking Radius but I stated Diameter...I did use a 80 km radius not diameter in my calculation.

Kitsune wrote:

Comosicus wrote: I think the Emperor brought just enough ships to keep the Rebel fleet from fleeing. The Death Star was suppose to do the bulk of the killing. The shield was not supposed to be brought down, so the Rebels would have been cornered between the shield and the Imperial Fleet, as it happened in the first place.

I heard that reasoning but I think I would have, as an Admiral, keep a fleet of hundreds of Star Destroyers at the edge of the system.

Maybe, but then the Rebels could not have won. Their only chance would have been to hijack the DS2, get control of the shield (not blowing it up) and avange the losses of their fleet. And usually good guys win (at least in movies)

Kitsune wrote:

YT300000 wrote:

Kitsune wrote:I am wondering what people think of this debate subject. The first Deathstar was 80 km in diameter

160, actually.

I was thinking Radius but I stated Diameter...I did use a 80 km radius not diameter in my calculation.

Sorry, I saw that and immedately quoted and responded to it, before I read the rest. No harm done anyway.

Just think how many Eclipse Super Stardestroyers that they could have made.

FTeik wrote:And i once had a discussion with Crd.Wilson about the millions of ISD one could have built for a single DS and got my ass handed to me (i was the one claiming that 22 million ISDs for the empire were possible because of the DS).

Where? With who? Rob Wilson?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

FTeik wrote:And i once had a discussion with Crd.Wilson about the millions of ISD one could have built for a single DS and got my ass handed to me (i was the one claiming that 22 million ISDs for the empire were possible because of the DS).

Where? With who? Rob Wilson?

More likely CmdrWilkens.

FTeik wrote:IIRC, the ISB says, that the DeathStar cost the same as "scores of sector-groups". What would mean 12-96 sector-groups, otherwise they would have talked of "hundreds of sector-groups".

And i once had a discussion with Crd.Wilson about the millions of ISD one could have built for a single DS and got my ass handed to me (i was the one claiming that 22 million ISDs for the empire were possible because of the DS).

Volume is probably not a perfect indicator depending on how solid the two construction are. Even if we are talking about a huge difference like even 100 times less dense (which I doubt), we are talking about 200,000 Stardestroyers and I would still rather have the Star Destroyers.

What was Crd.Wilson's argument against you?

Wasn't the Death Star created in order to swiftly destroy a shielded planet? The only other alternatives would be iffy technology such as torpedo spheres, or concentrated orbital bombardment that might take weeks before a shield would crack.

As for not bringing enough destroyers at Endor...maybe the Emperor was worried about the Rebels detecting the greater number of ships.

Edit: Just to add, I'd agree with Gil. I think super laser equiped ships would be a better buy. Of course, the Emperor wanted the Death Star to be the ultimate symbol of his authority, not an economical purchase.

Actually, price is more than just a function of volume. Those millions of Star Destroyers each require their own reactor, more turbolasers than those that cover the Death Star, more armor (the last two I assume because they don't arm and armor the interior, just the surface area, and millions of smaller objects made from one large sphere will have a larger surface area), more high ranking officers to pay (each destroyer will have a captain, and they will be divided into several fleets with flag officers), and so on and so forth.

Kitsune wrote:If Howander's Calculations are aproximtaely correct,

Try again.

Rogue 9 wrote:Actually, price is more than just a function of volume. Those millions of Star Destroyers each require their own reactor, more turbolasers than those that cover the Death Star, more armor (the last two I assume because they don't arm and armor the interior, just the surface area, and millions of smaller objects made from one large sphere will have a larger surface area), more high ranking officers to pay (each destroyer will have a captain, and they will be divided into several fleets with flag officers), and so on and so forth.

How many secondary reactors are you going to have on a death star?

The internal walls of a Death Star have to still be constructed of materials and those materials still have to be manufactured. weapons may be more a valid point point but all the internal equipment of a deathsta have to be manufactured and how much resources does the super laser require?

The final one on crew and officers, I don't have any figures on crew and Officers for the Deathstar but it has got to be huge. As well, you are suggesting (in a modern example) that we should not build frigates because the require captains and so do carriers. Actually, a frigate is usaully captained by a commander.

Gunshy wrote:Wasn't the Death Star created in order to swiftly destroy a shielded planet? The only other alternatives would be iffy technology such as torpedo spheres, or concentrated orbital bombardment that might take weeks before a shield would crack.

Hmm, if we go with even just 200,000 stardestroyers, imagine the concentration of say 10,000 stardestroyers firing on a single point. Could a planetary shield survive that?

How many secondary reactors are you going to have on a death star?

Not millions of hypermatter reactors capable of propelling a Star Destroyer's hyperdrive.

The internal walls of a Death Star have to still be constructed of materials and those materials still have to be manufactured.

Do the Death Star's internal walls use neutronium armor plate?

weapons may be more a valid point point but all the internal equipment of a deathsta have to be manufactured and how much resources does the super laser require?

Yeah, the superlaser may be a problem there, but if you build an Eclipse or three out of the material then you still have the same problem.

The final one on crew and officers, I don't have any figures on crew and Officers for the Deathstar but it has got to be huge. As well, you are suggesting (in a modern example) that we should not build frigates because the require captains and so do carriers. Actually, a frigate is usaully captained by a commander.

Actually, yeah the Death Star's crew was huge. So is the crew for that many Star Destroyers. And how many flag officers did the Death Star have aboard, anyway? Not so many as are going to staff the fleets composed of those SDs. Further, Star Destroyers are not frigates and are usually captained by captains.

Rogue 9 wrote: Not millions of hypermatter reactors capable of propelling a Star Destroyer's hyperdrive.

The big question is on the main "Hyper reactor" on the Death Star, how much more powerful and larger is that reactor. I have a copy of ICS and the picture of the reactor is huge and likely the same ratio toi the size of the platform as a a stardestroyer.

Rogue 9 wrote: Do the Death Star's internal walls use neutronium armor plate?

Maybe not but how about the frame holding the Death Star together? The ratios may be different for ships of Star Wars but all naval battleships had approximately 40% of their displacement being their structural works (Hull not including armor)
As well, how thick is the Deathstars armors compared to a Star destroyer's armor? I did a calculation and a Death Star has approximately 20,000 times the surface area of a box the size of a Star Destroyer.

Rogue 9 wrote: Yeah, the superlaser may be a problem there, but if you build an Eclipse or three out of the material then you still have the same problem.

I am not sure how powerful an eclipse superlaser compared to a deathstar laser and the material require for both. I don't know how official I consider the comics and don't know much about them either.

Rogue 9 wrote: Actually, yeah the Death Star's crew was huge. So is the crew for that many Star Destroyers. And how many flag officers did the Death Star have aboard, anyway? Not so many as are going to staff the fleets composed of those SDs. Further, Star Destroyers are not frigates and are usually captained by captains.

The Empire is suppose to include a huge amount of planets and I don't see crewing of as many stardestroyers as you want as a major problem. Someone on another thread is suggesting that Corescant has 5 trillion cops for example. The US Military had to expand incrdibly fast during WW2 through rapid promotions, the Empire can do the same.

Kitsune wrote:

Gunshy wrote:Wasn't the Death Star created in order to swiftly destroy a shielded planet? The only other alternatives would be iffy technology such as torpedo spheres, or concentrated orbital bombardment that might take weeks before a shield would crack.

Hmm, if we go with even just 200,000 stardestroyers, imagine the concentration of say 10,000 stardestroyers firing on a single point. Could a planetary shield survive that?

Indefinitely. Total output from 10000 ISDs is going to be at absolute most 1E30. This is 8 orders of magnitude less than the DS1 Superlaser's minimum output, which the Alderaan shield absorbed at a single point for a signifigant fraction of a second. This also presumes that the ISDs can put all of their reactor output to offense, and bring it all to bear in a single direction, although it does leave out any missile weapons that may be available(at a minimum, multiple loadouts for 120000 TIE bombers). Minimum figure to break through Alderaan's shield in any reasonable amount of time is probably upwards of a billion, maybe much higher, as the ISD is not optimised for the task.

The DS1 hypermatter reactor outperforms an ISD by at least 8 orders of magnitude. It also has capacitors on board capable of storing anywhere from 25000 times that energy on up. This is merely the minimum for the Superlaser, and does not take into account secondary weapons, shields, and the many tasks commonly lumped in under life support. The amount of fuel used to power one shot by the DS would fuel the 25000 ISD figure EU writers are so attached to for at least three years.