Is the Death Star II weaker than Death Star I?

[Ritterin Sophia]

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.

You're one dumb bloody mother fucking retard aren't you, let's see, we've seen hand blasters that have dial-yield, we've seen vehicles have variable yields, we've seen that capital weapons have variable yields, WHY WOULD THE DEATH STAR BE ANY FUCKING DIFFERENT?!

[BountyHunterSAx]

Responding to General Trelane:

Taken from my first post:

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.

I also stated in that same first post that they may turn out to be unprovable. The reason I bothered saying them 'at all' is because for each of them something seemed to support that conclusion.


For the first assumption: the DSII was fully armed and fully operational (to clarify what i meant by it), I base this off of the Palpatine quote. And the reason why I put it in the unprovable category is the exact one you mentioned - Palpatine is a galaxy class liar and would have had every reason to continue doing so at that point.


For the second you said:

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

and I want to thank you for acknowledging that I am not 100% retarded and that I *did* give a reason why the assumption could be countered, since it seems others here missed or chose to ignore that.

Still you want my reasons for why I'd even think of that assumption in the first place, so here they are:

1.) Power-settings are neither witnessed nor referenced in SW Canon for the hyper-laser. (apparently not true [see Lord Revan's quote])

2.) The weapon firing effect, including contact-duration (which I referenced again in the first post) was close-to if not identical in both the Alderaan destruction scene and the first not-off-axis ship-ship blast.

If power settings were altered I would have expected either the 6 supporting beams should not be necessary, or some other similar change would be present in the speed, appearance, etc of the laser.



Aside from that, the explosion itself (not the laser, the explosion) seemed identical in terms of appearance. While scientifically this makes no sense at all, in terms of special effects this is entirely understandable as a technical boo-boo of sorts. However since we are applying S.O.D., it falls to us to analyze every technical boo-boo and try to read the science into it that makes it work; and since the site never mentions these lower-energy DSII blasts I felt the need to open that can of worms. Though it's becoming readily more apparent that my initial assumptions aren't just mildly flawed but rather are in fact the explanation that is being given to account for the different explosions.


It's funny, then, that by trying to show a lesser capability of the DSII I inadvertently showed it had more capabilities.

-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

You're one dumb bloody mother fucking retard aren't you, let's see, we've seen hand blasters that have dial-yield, we've seen vehicles have variable yields, we've seen that capital weapons have variable yields, WHY WOULD THE DEATH STAR BE ANY FUCKING DIFFERENT?!

Because the 'stun' setting of the blaster witnessed in ANH looked different than the 'kill' setting - *AND* it was referenced that they were changing the weapon settings.

And no, this does not constitute proof. Read my first post where I clearly state that the second assumption is not provable and go so far as to give a possible counter-argument.

-AHMAD

[Ritterin Sophia]

You're one dumb bloody mother fucking retard aren't you, let's see, we've seen hand blasters that have dial-yield, we've seen vehicles have variable yields, we've seen that capital weapons have variable yields, WHY WOULD THE DEATH STAR BE ANY FUCKING DIFFERENT?!

Because the 'stun' setting of the blaster witnessed in ANH looked different than the 'kill' setting - *AND* it was referenced that they were changing the weapon settings.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Re-read my post; you are attributing to me something I didn't say.

My response answered your question "why would the death star be different." And I showed you that while a blaster - in the films - clearly was shown to have different power settings both by the appearance of the bolts and by the speech of the troopers in the area, the Death Star's power-setting meters (which I think we've proven do exist) are never once referenced in any of the films.

So your picture showing that the blaster has power settings - which I agreed with you on in the first place - is a non-sequitur. It would have been appropriate if I had denied that power-settings existed for other weapons in the SW-verse; but I didn't do that either explicitly or implicitly.

I stated that in the case of those alternate power settings the films referenced them whereas in the case of the death star the films didn't and in the case of those other weapons the lower settings appeared different whereas in the case of the death star it didn't.


Is it really that hard to follow?

-AHMAD

[The Spartan]

"Target. Maximum Firepower."

Sound familiar? General Veers in ESB.

[Ritterin Sophia]

-Snip Stupidity-

Let me laugh at you some more, can you explain, why the Death Star would be any different, when it's specifically stated that it's just a scaled up version of existing blaster technology, when all blaster weapons are scalable?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Not familiar, no. I looked it up though - yes, definitely there. Still; all this shows is that when the alternate power settings are used, the films reference it. Why then is this NOT the case with the Death Star?

And before you jump down my throat, I am playing devil's advocate at this point. If you want me to 'admit defeat' I've done so already and do so again with no equivocations or exclusions:

My initial assumptions were flawed. SW canon clearly states that the Death Star had power settings in one of the books, and as of such my entire argument is de-bunked.


However, I'm not an idiot - I didn't pull those assumptions out of my ass or out of thin air. While I stated (some) of the problems with them up front, it is notable that when other weapons' alternate settings are used there IS a reference to this reduction in firepower. So the argument "they just didn't want to show the part where the DS controls are used to lower the setting" is slightly weaker than it would have been otherwise; why mention lowering power settings one time and not another?

And yes - that question is rhetorical. Since the prototype is mentioned to have variant power settings, and the film does not DIRECTLY CONTRADICT such a claim, the DS has power settings; I just am defending why my making the initial claim is not idiotic.

-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

-Snip Stupidity-

^Don't misquote me...asshole.

Let me laugh at you some more,

Certainly.

can you explain, why the Death Star would be any different, when it's specifically stated that it's just a scaled up version of existing blaster technology,

Seeing as to how I have no idea where you got the notion that the Death Star was merely a scaled up blaster; no. Even with that knowledge, I'd hardly be able to explain why the Death Star does not scale since I myself have already claimed that it is not only possible but likely that it does scale (before the discussion started) and then went on to - after hearing that it does scale as evinced by SW canon - drop the point.



You're asking me to prove assumptions that I stated were not provable. I can't. And won't humiliate myself further by trying.

-AHMAD

[The Spartan]

Not familiar, no. I looked it up though - yes, definitely there. Still; all this shows is that when the alternate power settings are used, the films reference it. Why then is this NOT the case with the Death Star?

Why do they need to? Hell, is it not obvious that power to kill starship < power to explode planet at a significant fraction of c?

[Ghost Rider]

Next time, try a little research before asking and making assumptions. There is a search function.

Also wrong forum.

[Lord Poe]

From the ROTJ novelization:

At the feathered edge of the galaxy, the Death Star floated in stationary orbit above the green moon Endor — a moon whose mother planet had long since died of unknown cataclysm and disappeared into unknown realms. The Death Star was the Empire's armoured battle station, nearly twice as big as its predecessor, which Rebel forces had destroyed so many years before — nearly twice as big, but more than twice as powerful. Yet it was only half complete.

[Connor MacLeod]

Edit: Ah screw it, Wayne beat me to it.


The "multiple settings" as I recall, come from the Essential Guides involving the DS1 and 2, and the superlaser itself (Vehicles and vessels for the first, weapons and technology for the other.) specifying between a "full power" shot and lower powered (anti ship) shots.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Next time, try a little research before asking and making assumptions. There is a search function.

Also wrong forum.

My apologies; that's twice I've done the wrong-forum post - I'll be more careful in the future.

-Ahmad

[BountyHunterSAx]

From the ROTJ novelization:

At the feathered edge of the galaxy, the Death Star floated in stationary orbit above the green moon Endor — a moon whose mother planet had long since died of unknown cataclysm and disappeared into unknown realms. The Death Star was the Empire's armoured battle station, nearly twice as big as its predecessor, which Rebel forces had destroyed so many years before — nearly twice as big, but more than twice as powerful. Yet it was only half complete.

Ah; so it is known that - at the point of the battle of Endor - the DSII was already twice as powerful as the DSI; so clearly it must be capable of scaling shots....either that or there's something truly messed up going on with the rebel cap-ships.

-AHMAD

[Batman]

Since The Spartan already provided movie evidence for that being the case for the DS1 and thus superlasers are definitely scalable why shouldn't the DS2's be?
Not that I'm entirely sure what the size of the explosions has to do with the firepower of the superlaser. Why would there be a bigger explosion when I hit the ship with 19,000 times the energy needed to instantly vapourize it instead of only 5 times? There's only so much ship to vapourize, and the amount of ship available determines the size of the incadescent ball of superheated gas, no?

I probably missed something painfully obvious again.

[Terralthra]

The argument goes that Alderaan's pieces post-explosion moved in excess of 0.05c, but the fragments and debris from the Liberty and the other Mon Cal Cruiser destroyed by the DSII superlaser moved far less than that speed after they were destroyed.

Assuming that both blasts were full power (assumption 1, unfounded, refuted) and that the energy densities that the respective volumes of materials could absorb before vaporisation were much larger in the case of the planet vs. the cruiser(not proven, but not a bad assumption, given the vast size differential), the lesser speed of the starship debris could be inferred to mean that the blasts which destroyed them had far less power than the blast which destroyed Alderaan.

It's not really necessary to delve into the energy densities or relative maximum power of the beams. Conversation and events in Champions of the Force clearly indicates the the superlaser of the Death Star Prototype had scalable power output, and there's no reason to think this was taken out for either production model.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Since The Spartan already provided movie evidence for that being the case for the DS1 and thus super-lasers are definitely scalable why shouldn't the DS2's be?

Just to set the record straight and give credit where it's due; The Spartan's evidence was with reference to the weapon technology that was being used during the Hoth battle; not the DS1/DS2. Unless you were referring to outside this particular thread.

Unless I missed your point and what you're telling me is that the superlaser used by the DS is the same technology that is present in the ground-combat vehicles.

-AHMAD

[Ghost Rider]

Actually you are being an idiot.

DS technology is standard Imperial technology. This is demonstrated in CANON. So Spartan's bit about General Veers statement is showing in CANON that they have utilized scaled weaponry.

If you cannot get this thought, then either ask questions with NO assumptions or do research.

[Batman]

@BHS:No, that was my bad, I sort of completely missed the ESB reference. While I THINK Tarkin said something along those lines in ANH it's entirely possible I simply got my sources mixed up.
Still, since we see mini-superlasers in AotC it seems a reasonable conclusion it IS the same technology merely scaled up. And since the base technology canonically DOES have scalable firepower...

[BountyHunterSAx]

Actually you are being an idiot.

DS technology is standard Imperial technology. This is demonstrated in CANON. So Spartan's bit about General Veers statement is showing in CANON that they have utilized scaled weaponry.

A point I never contested, new beforehand, and never argued against. However just because some weapons scale does not mean all weapons must scale. The fact that in SW Imperial Tech's case all weapons DO scale aside.

I can give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about. In the Federation (ST) we've seen them use varied settings for their ships phasers and their hand-phasers. That said, we've never seen any sign whatsoever that phaser-rifles, or the weapon used in STFC(unsure of the name) had scaling potential. Further, in a non-canon source, the SW TOS book "Day of Honor" Kirk was faced with a problem where he needed to conserve energy in the phaser rifle; but since it did not scale he was unable to do so.

Of course that's a non-canon source but I hope it illustrates my point; that I perfectly well understood the argument being advanced both by Spartan and by Schatten earlier on in this thread; that many Imperial weapon systems are shown to have variant power-settings; at least three from film-canon alone (the tractor beam from the DS1 in ANH being the third).

That said, in all such cases either the power setting change was referred to in the text and/or was accompanied by a different beam shape, size, or color; something that was not seen in the DS1 vs DS2 beams.

Of course it's a moot point since there is also canon evidence showing that the DS itself has these settings (though not film-canon).

-AHMAD

[Batman]

Actually you are being an idiot.
DS technology is standard Imperial technology. This is demonstrated in CANON. So Spartan's bit about General Veers statement is showing in CANON that they have utilized scaled weaponry.

A point I never contested, new beforehand, and never argued against. However just because some weapons scale does not mean all weapons must scale. The fact that in SW Imperial Tech's case all weapons DO scale aside.

No, but when a weapon that is canonically and obviously just a scaled-up version of weaponry already in use that DOES have variable settings the default assumption is that it has variable settings, too.

I can give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about. In the Federation (ST) we've seen them use varied settings for their ships phasers and their hand-phasers. That said, we've never seen any sign whatsoever that phaser-rifles, or the weapon used in STFC(unsure of the name) had scaling potential.

Yeah, right. weapons that work on the exact same principle the hand phasers do somehow lose the ability to adjust firepower. Oh, and wrong to boot-we've seen phaser rifles modified to act as active sensors on a very low yield in DS9.

Further, in a non-canon source, the SW TOS book "Day of Honor" Kirk was faced with a problem where he needed to conserve energy in the phaser rifle; but since it did not scale he was unable to do so.
Of course that's a non-canon source but I hope it illustrates my point; that I perfectly well understood the argument being advanced both by Spartan and by Schatten earlier on in this thread; that many Imperial weapon systems are shown to have variant power-settings; at least three from film-canon alone (the tractor beam from the DS1 in ANH being the third).
That said, in all such cases either the power setting change was referred to in the text and/or was accompanied by a different beam shape, size, or color; something that was not seen in the DS1 vs DS2 beams.

Which doesn't mean dick. As per your own examples Trek phaser beams look exactly the same on stun, kill, and phasorize. The look of the beam doesn't say BEANS about the yield.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Except it *does* mean something because in ANH, stun looked different from kill...pointedly different. It's not proof; not by a long shot. And according to SW-books, the DS weapon does scale so in fact the point is DISPROVED. Luckily I labeled the second assumption unproven in my first post and did not even BRING UP this whole appearance/reference issue until asked specifically why I made that assumption in the first place. Not once did I say I could prove that second assumption - and if I did; that was wrong of me to say and I retract it entirely.


-AHMAD

[The Spartan]

stun looked different from kill...pointedly different.

Let me put it this way. Does a bean bag look different than a standard bullet? No?

Now answer this: does a .50 cal round look different than a .30 cal round apart from size? No?

So if 'stun' looks different than 'kill', then why would it necessarily follow that 'kill' will look substantially different than 'kill more'?

[BountyHunterSAx]

It wouldn't have to; and clearly it doesn't in the case of the DSII, since we know from cannon that the settings were modified when firing on cap-ships in ROTJ.

That said, it isn't a bad assumption that it would look different; it just turns out to be a false assumption in this case.

-AHMAD