DeathStar II: Why so big?

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-20 06:45am

While most official sources tell us, that DS1 had a diameter of 120 Km and DS2 a diameter of 160 Km i think most of us agree, that the first DeathStar was 160 Km in diameter and the second Deathstar at least 800 Km.

The question is why?

I mean (if i used my pocket-calculator right) DS2 would have 178 times the volume of DS2 (using the 900 Km-diameter).

So what was the entire space needed for?

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2003-08-20 07:22am

Power source.

The Death Star II could recharge the Superlaser a lot faster than Death Star I.

Lex · Post by **Lex** » 2003-08-20 07:31am

Palpatine wanted a thing which he could spread fear over the whole galaxy... and he wanted an even bigger superlaser

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2003-08-20 08:20am

Compensaaaation! Compensaaaaaaaaaaaaation!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-08-20 09:02am

D.Turtle wrote:Power source.

I'd also say more recoil bracing and waste heat dissipation and stuff like that.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-20 09:36am

DS1 had no problems with recoil.

The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.

Already the firepower of DS1 is almost absurdely large (although obviously necessary against shielded targets like Alderaan), so there should be already enough destructive energy to destroy ships. How many planets per day wants emperor Palpatine destroyed?

While it is possible to understand the difference between 160 Km and 800 Km in an intellectual way i somehow doubt on the emotional level there would be a difference between "160 fucking kilometers huge" and "800 fucking kilometers huge". Human senses are made to work on a certain level of scale and if the scale becomes to big or to small, we are no longer able to see things for what they are.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-08-20 10:22am

Just a note.

The OT ICS lists Death Star I as 160 Km.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-20 11:45am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Just a note.

The OT ICS lists Death Star I as 160 Km.

...i think most of us agree, that the first DeathStar was 160 Km in diameter ...

Second line of the first post, but some people can´t read that far.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-08-20 12:07pm

FTeik wrote:DS1 had no problems with recoil.

The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.

The Prototype had a smaller than full power Superlaser and the Superlaser was all they reactor basically had to run. This is like compairing Big Bertha to a Iowa class Battleship. There is much more to the Death Star than just the superlaser. It appears that its powerplant was much larger than the prototype's one. It also appears that the DSII was build to be so large that noone would be able to destroy it once it was completed. Its size may also be a part of the Trap as it is so large that the superlaser can be complete and the thing will still look unfinished enough to still fool the Rebellion until it opens fire.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-08-20 12:16pm

How many HTls does the DS2 have. If it has 1 every 500 meters, that add up to 48 million, if i did my math correct.

Agent R · Post by **Agent R** » 2003-08-20 02:32pm

I've heard somewhere that the DS2 needed a more sophisticated targeting system in order to blast ships. Maybe some of that extra room was used to house all that computing power? After all, it's much harder to hit moving (albeit slowly) starship at a close distance than it is to hit a planet at several planetary diameters.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-08-20 02:38pm

Agent R wrote:I've heard somewhere that the DS2 needed a more sophisticated targeting system in order to blast ships. Maybe some of that extra room was used to house all that computing power? After all, it's much harder to hit moving (albeit slowly) starship at a close distance than it is to hit a planet at several planetary diameters.

I heard that as well. Some one stated (forgot wether it was here or SB, or maybe it was the TF.net) that the first Deathstar Could not target moving objects like ships and instead relied on it's Turbolaser batteries to do that job instead. The Second deathstar had a better targetting system that would allow the superlaser to attack moving objects like ships.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-08-20 07:25pm

DS1 had no problems with recoil.

The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.

But this one is far more powerfull.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-20 07:37pm

FTeik wrote:DS1 had no problems with recoil.

Proof? The momentum doesn't vanish.

FTeik wrote:The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.

Powerful enough to destroy asteroids and Rebel frigates and corvettes. Hardly full-power blasts.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-20 07:57pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
FTeik wrote:DS1 had no problems with recoil.
Proof? The momentum doesn't vanish.

FTeik wrote:The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.
Powerful enough to destroy asteroids and Rebel frigates and corvettes. Hardly full-power blasts.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but a directed energy weapon should have no recoil at all, right?

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-08-20 09:21pm

Chardok wrote:Maybe I'm an idiot, but a directed energy weapon should have no recoil at all, right?

Wrong. Even photons, which are massless, have momentum.

That said, the Death Star had to have a way to handle the recoil. There are no indications that it had trouble with the recoil (which would have been huge), hence the statement earlier that it had "no problems with recoil." IOW, it's compensation systems were apparently sufficient for the task.

Dorsk 81 · Post by **Dorsk 81** » 2003-08-20 10:02pm

I swear I did this thread not more than a month ago....

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-08-20 10:21pm

Chardok wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
FTeik wrote:DS1 had no problems with recoil.
Proof? The momentum doesn't vanish.

How about the fact that there was no visible change in position of the DS?

Then there is however that complex mass bit fits in there.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-08-20 10:23pm

Ender wrote:Then there is however that complex mass bit fits in there.

I thought he was suggesting there was no recoil. Nevermind.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-08-20 10:28pm

FTeik wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Just a note.

The OT ICS lists Death Star I as 160 Km.
...i think most of us agree, that the first DeathStar was 160 Km in diameter ...

Second line of the first post, but some people can´t read that far.

The OT ICS is a canon source, doorknob. And I was indicating that not all sources use the incorrect 120 km size.

But it was nice that you were such a dick about it, though...

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-08-20 11:51pm

There was more to the Death Star than the frigging superlaser, people. It carried countless ground troops, thousands of fighters, and warships (sort of). It carried staggering conventional firepower in addition to the superlaser. It had planetary-scale defenses (If I remember correctly). The Death STar was a self-contained and largely self-sufficient warship in its own right, and one that was designed to be invulnerable (in other words, a goodly portion of internal volume was dedicated to protecting it from external attack.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-08-20 11:53pm

And lets not forget that they were able to get the thing halfway constructed in a mere six months, all the while hiding its existence from the galaxy at large. In other words, it was representative of the sheer magnitude of industrial might the Empire was capable of if it neccesarily tried.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-08-21 12:19am

BRAVO, highlander!

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-21 05:55am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
FTeik wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Just a note.

The OT ICS lists Death Star I as 160 Km.
...i think most of us agree, that the first DeathStar was 160 Km in diameter ...

Second line of the first post, but some people can´t read that far.
The OT ICS is a canon source, doorknob. And I was indicating that not all sources use the incorrect 120 km size.

But it was nice that you were such a dick about it, though...

Hrrrrmpf.

Point is, i NEVER asked on peoples opinion HOW big the damn thing is
or
the sources, where the different sizes are stated,
or
if those sources i never asked for are canon or official.

I already made clear, that i think DS1 to be 160 Km and DS2 to be 800 Km and you didn´t said a single thing about what i wanted your and other peoples opinion on.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-08-21 06:03am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
FTeik wrote:DS1 had no problems with recoil.
Proof? The momentum doesn't vanish.

As already pointed out by Ender, i did´t said there was no recoil at all, but that the size and the systems of the DS1 were enough to deal with it.

FTeik wrote:The DeathStar-Prototype at the Maw (thank you KJA) was able to fire several times per hour, so there were no problems with recharging.
Powerful enough to destroy asteroids and Rebel frigates and corvettes. Hardly full-power blasts.

True. But it also tells us, that the targeting-system of the prototype was able to target smaller vessels and objects (like DS2).

So why wasn´t DS1 able to do so?

As for things like computing-power, additional troops and other systems ...

I would understand it, if the increase in volume would have been tenfold, maybe twentyfold, but 178 times???

178-times???

How many eggs more would the empire have put into the thing compared to DS1?

Or are some people suggesting, that DS1 was an even more failed design, than we already know about?