Is the Death Star II weaker than Death Star I?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Right before going into my reasoning, I'm going to state all of my unprovable assumptions up front.

1.) The DS II was fully armed and operational during the battle of Endor, or at least the main-beam was.

2.) The DS II was not intentionally set to a lower power setting during the battle of Endor.

[[this is the most easily challenged assumption, as not only would it make sense to lower the power setting, BUT...

During ANH, the DSI was shown waiting for its orbit to clear a planet before firing on the rebel base. While originally the idea was sound enough, when they fell under attack - and when they analyzed the attack and found that it may -indeed- pose a threat, they still neglected to simply blow the planet out of the way before firing on the rebel base.

Quite likely, then, the DSI in full power mode had some sort of re-charge phase that inhibited it from firing multiple shots. Since the DSII was seen doing just this, it's possible that it was intentionally set to a lower power setting, which refutes my argument.]]


3.) Although DW specifically states on the main page: "... that it is difficult to gauge the effect of weapons in any meaningful sense unless they are applied to inert objects ... ... we need to look for weapons striking inert objects such as rocks, planets, asteroids, etc." He in fact intended to imply that the resultant explosion may be overrepresented, not under. That is to say that if firing a handgun at a plane causes a massive megaton explosion, we don't assume the handgun caused the explosion, but if that handgun were fired against, say, a rock and it caused a megaton explosion, we could safely assume that firing the same handgun against a plane would cause a megaton explosion, or more.

[[ I don't know enough science to know if this is or is not refutable]]

4.) The literature does not talk in too much detail about the DSI or DSII outside of these six movies and does not differ significantly from it.

</unproved or unprovable assumptions>


Here's my summary argument, with no calculations. I do hope you'll be able to refute or accept it without full figures, and then calculating figures will be more to determine ramifications than anything else.

Anyways, take a look at the explosion at:

2:25 DSII firing on a ship
2:49 DSII firing on yet another ship; but off-axis this time.

in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G2gimprlwg

The way the blast is shaped, and - just eyeballing it - the speed of expansion of the explosion of the ship is significantly smaller than the speed at which Alderaan exploded even if they were in the same frame of reference. (http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Be ... lassic.avi).

Add in the fact that from the Alderaan shot's frame of reference the slightest movement is significant, and what you're left with is this:

The DSII had a very very very very low yield shot by comparison to the DSI.

Furthermore, notice in the first of those anti-ship shots, the shot from the death star is not shown to be off-axis, but rather is done quite like the Alderaan shot (which we assume is not off-axis).




One thing that would have contributed to this lack of explosive energy would be if the entire power from the shot failed to fully connect with the ship. Alternatively, if the Alderaan beam were active longer (in order to first overcome the planetary shield and then the buildup knocked out the planet with even more force), it would explain a more aggressive planetary explosion. That is not the case, however, as evidenced by the actual image of the hyper-laser striking the target. In both the Alderaan case and the of the ship-ship shot, the hyper-laser is show striking the target, maintaining contact for about the same amount of time (1s or less) and then ceasing, as the target explodes.

Lastly, to further support my argument, I'm going to address one of my admittedly unprovable assumptions. In my third assumption I stated that the explosion could be aided, but would not mitigated, by the presence of fuel and other such volatile substances on board. As a result any explosive blast we saw may be made bigger by the fact that it's not an inert object, but certainly not smaller/slower. It occurs to me that unlike a planet, ships have shields that would lower the blasting power fractionally, however Alderaan had a shield of its own, apparently, and it still exploded far more powerfully than the comparatively tiny ship.


I know it's going out on a limb to think this argument hasn't already been made, so if it has, please just refer me to the debunking thread, and lock the topic. Thank you.

-AHMAD

PS: Just because I put the assumptions in the beginning doesn't imply that I 'assumed whatever I wanted to'. The assumptions I made are each with their own credibility, just not proven. I can explain my reasoning for each if so desired, except perhaps the second. That said, I've seen what happens when people try to pawn off their beliefs as proven and so I'm just stating it openly at the beginning.

[Aaron]

The DSI took 24 hours to recharge between full power shots. So even if they blasted Yavin out of the way they couldn't have nailed Yavin 4 with the Superlaser. They would have had to use the smaller guns.

[BountyHunterSAx]

The DSI took 24 hours to recharge between full power shots. So even if they blasted Yavin out of the way they couldn't have nailed Yavin 4 with the Superlaser. They would have had to use the smaller guns.

[quote ="BountyHunterSAx"]Quite likely, then, the DSI in full power mode had some sort of re-charge phase that inhibited it from firing multiple shots. [/quote]

So does the DSII correct this flaw? I don't know where the source for an exact 24-hour period comes from (though I am not contending its accuracy or demanding that you produce such a source) but does this same source reference a similar recharge period in the DSII? If it does, then that proves my 2nd assumption as probably invalid, and negates my argument. If not, and I somehow doubt that Lucas spent the time worrying about scientific consistency to put that in, then my 2nd assumption is still - while not proven - at least not disproven. That is to say; there is no proof that they utilized a lower blast setting; simply the beam is not as powerful as the DSI was. Since the DSI has been in production since before the clone wars, clearly this is not beyond the pale of reason.

-AHMAD

[Aaron]

So does the DSII correct this flaw? I don't know where the source for an exact 24-hour period comes from (though I am not contending its accuracy or demanding that you produce such a source) but does this same source reference a similar recharge period in the DSII? If it does, then that proves my 2nd assumption as probably invalid, and negates my argument. If not, and I somehow doubt that Lucas spent the time worrying about scientific consistency to put that in, then my 2nd assumption is still - while not proven - at least not disproven. That is to say; there is no proof that they utilized a lower blast setting; simply the beam is not as powerful as the DSI was. Since the DSI has been in production since before the clone wars, clearly this is not beyond the pale of reason.

-AHMAD

Given that the DSI is 160 km in diameter while the DSII is 900 km in diameter it stands to reason that the power generation capabilities of the DSII are also greater than the DSI. I believe it also states in the opening crawl of ROTJ that the DSII is more powerful than the original.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Given that the DSI is 160 km in diameter while the DSII is 900 km in diameter it stands to reason that the power generation capabilities of the DSII are also greater than the DSI. I believe it also states in the opening crawl of ROTJ that the DSII is more powerful than the original.

It does mention that the Empire is indeed working on a new DS which will be more powerful. If we accept that the bigger size allows for:

1.) Off-axis firing.
2.) Lower/non-existent recharge time for the super-laser.

Then it only exacerbates the apparent contradiction that a blast that blows the planet apart so energetically, when turned on a ship, causes the ship to explode at an infinitesimal fraction of the energy.

That was unnecessarily wordy, but I'm sure you guys still see the contradiction I'm referring to. And owing to the fact that I haven't been referred to the main page or a dead-thread, I'm starting to think perhaps this hasn't yet been addressed.

-AHMAD

[Aaron]

No I have no idea what your talking about. If your looking for something on the main site I suggest you poke around until you find it rather than just asking for people to do it for you.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Right. But I'm not looking for anything. I've read the Death Star section, the section on Imperial technology, and the section on Alderaan. Apart from mentioning in the ROTJ review that the DSII was now able to shoot off-axis I've seen no analysis on this particular 'smaller explosion' dilemma.

And your reaction (read: not pointing, laughing, and saying 'another one of these fucktards') implies strongly that this is not a common argument.

Not a proof; just an observation.

-AHMAD

[Aaron]

If the ships produced a smaller explosion doesn't it follow that the superlaser was set to a lower power setting?

After all it doesn't make sense to waste anymore fuel than you have too to destroy a given ship.

[BountyHunterSAx]

It's certainly possible - and I stated as much in my assumptions that I couldn't prove the contrary.

Nevertheless, why the 6 supporting beams as in the first case? Why the same preceding firing sequence? Why is there no reference whatsoever in the film to indicate that a lower power setting was used? While absence of evidence doesn't constitute proof that such evidence cannot exist, we have seen no sign that the DSII was indeed stronger than the DSI, anymore than we've seen any sign that Q's parlor-tricks were anything more than optical illusions in Star Trek.

And no, I'm not trying to drag Q into this; don't read my statement wrongly. What I am saying is that if we can dismiss Q's seeming-ability to teleport back to the time of the primordial ooze, or to force Picard to move between time periods as merely illusory on account of a lack of tangible evidence to prove it did indeed actually happen, then why can't we disregard the DSII's blast as inherently weaker since:

1.) There is no tangible evidence that a lower power setting was ever used - or more accurately - that the death star's hyper-laser even has power setting abilities.

2.) There is evidence to show that when fired in ROTJ it had a significantly lower destructive capacity even though it had an identical firing sequence.


The only significantly more powerful thing about the 2nd Death Star that we've seen evidenced by its usage is that the recharge period is either non-existent, or extremely short. And that *would* in theory, account for the immense size differential between the DSI and DSII as well as explain why the crawl states the DSII is more powerful than the DSI.



I guess the real flaw in my argument, in the end, though; is present in my first post - though we've seen no evidence of the power settings, it is the only explanation that is consistent with the DSII being more powerful than the DSI, yet firing the shots we saw it fire in ROTJ.

-AHMAD

[Darth Servo]

we have seen no sign that the DSII was indeed stronger than the DSI

Other than the opening crawl of the film you mean?

[Aaron]

So what's the problem?

[BountyHunterSAx]

we have seen no sign that the DSII was indeed stronger than the DSI

Other than the opening crawl of the film you mean?

Right, but I mentioned that..here:

The only significantly more powerful thing about the 2nd Death Star that we've seen evidenced by its usage is that the recharge period is either non-existent, or extremely short. And that *would* in theory, account for the immense size differential between the DSI and DSII as well as explain why the crawl states the DSII is more powerful than the DSI.

[Aaron]

So you admit that there is no explicet evidence that the DSII has power settings but admit that it is implied by the fact that the explosions produced by the ships at Endor are smaller. And you admit that the opening crawl says that the DSII is more powerful than the original.

So what's the problem?

[Darth Servo]

we have seen no sign that the DSII was indeed stronger than the DSI

Other than the opening crawl of the film you mean?

Right, but I mentioned that..here:

The only significantly more powerful thing about the 2nd Death Star that we've seen evidenced by its usage is that the recharge period is either non-existent, or extremely short. And that *would* in theory, account for the immense size differential between the DSI and DSII as well as explain why the crawl states the DSII is more powerful than the DSI.

Yes, I know. That doesn't change the fact that your statement of "we have seen NO sign..." is clearly false.

[BountyHunterSAx]

So what's the problem?

I don't like that you have to 'assume' that the weapons power-settings exist, and further that they were turned down, when one could just as well assume the opposite:

they don't exist, they aren't set lower, and they aren't powerful. We see no evidence of the DSII's power...or more accurately, we're *shown* its power - - - and it sucks by comparison to the DSI.


So I guess what I'm pushing for is this: Is there some evidence of power settings used or referenced? Lest we forget, the beam weapon looks identical in all three shots that we see; so if power settings *are* present, they certainly don't affect the appearance of the beam.


-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

Other than the opening crawl of the film you mean?

Right, but I mentioned that..here:

The only significantly more powerful thing about the 2nd Death Star that we've seen evidenced by its usage is that the recharge period is either non-existent, or extremely short. And that *would* in theory, account for the immense size differential between the DSI and DSII as well as explain why the crawl states the DSII is more powerful than the DSI.

Yes, I know. That doesn't change the fact that your statement of "we have seen NO sign..." is clearly false.

Very well, I'm not a fool; you're right - we have seen an sign of greater power; that's provable. We're told in a canon source that it is more powerful; and we're shown that it's recharge phase is immensely short by comparison to the 24hour figure the DSI mentions. So I concede that point.

That said, we've also seen the explosion of the ship - which shows only a fraction of the energy is present that was present in the DSI's Alderaan blast was present in the DSII's ship-ship blast. Either:

A) we draw the conclusion the latter blast was weaker because it was set to a lower setting. (certainly reasonable - though no proof of this exists.)

B) The off-axis shooting capability and higher recharge ability of the DSII as well as the significantly reduced time present to produce the DSII compared to the time to produce the DSI allows for the possibility that the laser was not as powerful as the first one.

-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

Concede that point is the wrong phrase; i never was trying to prove the DSII was weaker on the whole; only that its laser blast did less damage.

So let me rephrase that - "I retract the statement"

-AHMAD

[Lord Poe]

Right. But I'm not looking for anything. I've read the Death Star section, the section on Imperial technology, and the section on Alderaan. Apart from mentioning in the ROTJ review that the DSII was now able to shoot off-axis I've seen no analysis on this particular 'smaller explosion' dilemma.

And your reaction (read: not pointing, laughing, and saying 'another one of these fucktards') implies strongly that this is not a common argument

Yes it is.

Try this experiment. Piss on a washcloth. No appreciable piss stream comes out the other side, right. Now turn a firehose on that same washcloth.

See the difference?

Why would they ramp up to planet-busting power levels to take out a kilometer-long ship? Do you turn the bathroom faucet on full blast when you wash your hands? Do you bang on a door with all your might when a knock would have sufficed?

[Aaron]

I don't like that you have to 'assume' that the weapons power-settings exist, and further that they were turned down, when one could just as well assume the opposite:

they don't exist, they aren't set lower, and they aren't powerful. We see no evidence of the DSII's power...or more accurately, we're *shown* its power - - - and it sucks by comparison to the DSI.

Good grief man, yes the shown power is less than that of the DSI but the very opening of the film establishes that it is more powerful than the original as does the briefing on Home One, otherwise why would they be bothering to destroy it?

So I guess what I'm pushing for is this: Is there some evidence of power settings used or referenced? Lest we forget, the beam weapon looks identical in all three shots that we see; so if power settings *are* present, they certainly don't affect the appearance of the beam.


-AHMAD

Sometimes you just have to observe the effects seen on screen and employ logic, unless there's something in the novelisation. In which case I'd be grateful for anyone who could supply info.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

The whole notion that the Death Star II's superlaser is not scaleable is, frankly, retarded. If the firepower it demonstrates against Capships in RotJ is the maximum output of its weapon, then it is no longer capable of its original fucking function. To blow planets into chunky fucking pieces.

It's more logical to assume that the Death Star II, which is, oh... several times larger than its predescessor, simply has a fucking super-laser that can fire out a lower energy out-put, for the purpose of targeting capital ships instead of planets. I may be remembering incorrectly, because it's been a while since I read the shitty things, but even the Prototype Death Star in KJA's Jedi Academy books could do this.

Making the Death Star bigger, and then castrating its Superweapon makes no sense. It would be a stupid thing for the Imperials to do. Hell, it would make the Death Star II's Superlaser [/i]less powerful than that of the Eclipse, a ship that's a bit smaller than the Executor!



There are times when making assumptions is stupid, but there are other times when those assumptions are fully justified. And, just to note, the laser fired by the DS II in the clip you showed was significantly smaller and shorter lived than the one fired on Alderaan by the DS I.

[Isolder74]

Right. But I'm not looking for anything. I've read the Death Star section, the section on Imperial technology, and the section on Alderaan. Apart from mentioning in the ROTJ review that the DSII was now able to shoot off-axis I've seen no analysis on this particular 'smaller explosion' dilemma.

And your reaction (read: not pointing, laughing, and saying 'another one of these fucktards') implies strongly that this is not a common argument

Yes it is.

Try this experiment. Piss on a washcloth. No appreciable piss stream comes out the other side, right. Now turn a firehose on that same washcloth.

See the difference?

Why would they ramp up to planet-busting power levels to take out a kilometer-long ship? Do you turn the bathroom faucet on full blast when you wash your hands? Do you bang on a door with all your might when a knock would have sufficed?

Its not a very good source but the WEG states for the two Death Stars indicate that the DSII could add or subtract power levels on a shot firing a number of d's up to 20 I think was the cap. At the Games Death Star Level Firepower 5 d's could pretty much kill any Capitol ship in the game stats with one shot.

[Lord Revan]

As people have said is there any reason to assume that the blast that destroyed the capital ships were indeed full power blasts when the Opening Crawl (which should be considered more or less impartial) and the rebel briefing both said that the DSII was more powerfull then DSI and we know from EU (the prototype mentioned) that the Death Star main weapon is in fact capable of firing with less then full power.

[BountyHunterSAx]

True about the time-period; the same can't be said about the contact period - and it fully shows the super-laser starting, going to the planet, hitting it, and the planet exploding. Which is less than a second, which is the time period i referred to in my first post.



And yes, if the limit of the power of the DSII is what we saw it would be the equivalent of pissing on a washcloth and not fire-hosing it. And yes, the belief that the DSII is weaker than the DSI is *entirely* based on the assumption that the DSII has no power-setting ability.

Of course, as I *CLEARLY* stated in my first post, that's the most easily challenged assumption; hell, I even gave the counter-argument.

So why did I still post the rest of this? Because there is no evidence of power settings OTHER than the fact that if they DONT exist, then the DSII is weak.

And it turns out- that in fact there is that evidence.... Cpl Kendall mentions the briefing at Home One (ROTJ), and the crawl itself.


And that is sufficient evidence that it's stronger; though it still leaves the unresolved issue of the weapon blast being identical and no power settings being evidenced or mentioned.



-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

...... and we know from EU (the prototype mentioned) that the Death Star main weapon is in fact capable of firing with less then full power.

Ah - we do??? Well that means that you successfully answer the question I ask repeatedly throughout this thread. Anyways, it does defeat the second assumption that I made.

-AHMAD

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Right before going into my reasoning, I'm going to state all of my unprovable assumptions up front.

1.) The DS II was fully armed and operational during the battle of Endor, or at least the main-beam was.

First, what does "fully armed and operational" mean? Does it mean fully armed and fully operational? Or does it mean operational and fully armed?

Second, that assumption is taken from dialogue. . .specifically a scene wherein the Emporer is manipulating Luke's feelings. Can we take that quote as being completely accurate? The answer is obvious, and you already seem to grasp this because you qualified it with "or at least the main-beam was' (note that the actual dialogue referred to the "battlestation" and not just to the superlaser).

2.) The DS II was not intentionally set to a lower power setting during the battle of Endor.
<snip>

That is an entirely baseless assumption, and you refute it quite nicely in the snipped portion. If you really have some good reason for making this assumption, please state it.

Your entire premise (apparently that DS2 is weaker then DS1) hinges entirely on this assumption.