Could the DS destroy all the borg

[Darth Wong]

Robert, you have asserted that the Death Star cannot possibly destroy thousands of worlds even though it is canon fact that it applied enough energy to Alderaan to destroy one million worlds, and was ready to do it again at Yavin.

In other words, even if we assume it was only capable of firing just two Alderaan-level shots, we know for a fact that it can easily use its already-established capabilities to destroy hundreds of thousands of worlds with the same amount of energy, by simply using lower-powered shots. It is not mere speculation to say that its energy reserves are ridiculously large.

PS. Like it or not, its lack of a supply convoy and support fleet do obviously indicate that it was designed to operate independently. However, either way your assertion is utterly invalid.

[Patrick Degan]

From the Technology page on the main Stardestroyer site:


Hypermatter

The nature of hypermatter is difficult to discern precisely, which is unfortunate since it is so critical to the operation of the Death Star (although this obviously hasn't stopped certain Federation cultist technobabble afictionados from their usual antics of trying to figure out what it is exclusively from its name). A cursory examination of the Death Star diagram from SWICS reveals a fascinating aspect of its design: it has no fuel tanks! This is not an insignificant revelation- a vessel the size of a small moon will consume staggering amounts of fuel simply to move around and power its onboard systems, even if we disregard the stupendous act of delivering 1E38 joules of kinetic energy into the mass of a planet. Furthermore, there are no huge fuel transport lines running from the docking area deep inside the station,

There are several theories which attempt to explain this remarkable omission:

1. "The DS has fuel tanks- they're just small and out of the way." This theory is poor because SWICS cuts away one full quadrant of the Death Star for inspection, revealing every other important major system. Furthermore, the Death Star must consume more than 1E21 kg of fuel with each full-power shot, even with perfect mass/energy conversion. If the Death Star has any fuel tanks at all, they must be huge. If it carries matter/antimatter fuel at the density of uranium, it would drain a spherical fuel tank with a diameter of nearly five hundred kilometres, just to fire one shot! This is several times the size of the entire battle station!

2. "The DS is refueled on the fly." This would require a constant flow of huge transport vessels to and from the Death Star, which was never observed in the films or described in the novelizations. Another serious problem with this theory concerns logistics: if the Death Star was dependent upon huge fuel supply convoys, storage facilities, and refineries, then the Rebels would have logically attacked them instead making suicidal attacks upon the Death Star itself.

3. "The fuel is ultra-dense." This would explain the apparent absence of fuel tanks, but it would require an exotic type of matter such as neutronium or perhaps even a black hole. It should be noted that this is a distinct possibility, and in fact, one might surmise that since matter, antimatter, and energy become indistinguishable inside a black hole, a black hole could potentially be referred to as "hypermatter".

4. "The Death Star requires no onboard fuel." This theory would require that it can somehow draw mass/energy from a source outside of itself, such as the theoretical vacuum zero-point energy of the universe, a source of mass/energy in hyperspace, or a distant source such as a quasar or black hole (presumably connected to the Death Star's hypermatter reactor through some kind of wormhole).

The first and second theories are unacceptable. The first theory replaces nonexistent fuel tanks with miniscule hidden fuel tanks, which is improbable and would hardly solve the problem even if it were true. The second theory opens up so many logistical vulnerabilities for the Death Star that it would been easily disabled through attacks on its support structure. A direct assault on the Death Star would never have been necessary.

The third theory holds more promise. A singularity or other form of ultra-dense mass would explain the following:

* The Death Star's vast supply of energy
* The Death Star's lack of fuel tanks

However, the obvious question remains: what happens to this ultra-dense energy source? If it explodes when the Death Star explodes, then one would imagine that the blast should have devastated or destroyed Endor immediately (irrespective of any long-term "nuclear winter" holocaust scenarios). If it continues to move through space after the Death Star explodes, one would tend to imagine that it would have been observed. However, it is important to note that this cannot entirely be ruled out. In fact, the ANH novelization contains the following description of the immediate aftermath of DS1's destruction:

"The collapsed residue of the battle station would continue to consume itself for several days, forming for that brief span of time the most impressive tombstone in this corner of the cosmos."

This suggests that in spite of the violence of the explosion, a significant quantity of the Death Star's mass was gravitationally attracted back to its original location. This is what one might expect if there was an ultra-dense object inside the Death Star, thus lending credence to the theory that a singularity or other ultra-dense object was contained in the Death Star's hypermatter reactor. However, the fate of the Endor sanctuary moon demands explanation, since such a large mass in such a low orbit would have created tremendous tidal forces in the planet's crust. Han Solo's strike team should have felt as if they were a small fraction of their normal weight (if not actually flying up into the air).

This brings us to the fourth theory: the theory that the Death Star is drawing energy from a source external to itself. This theory is certainly not without its flaws: the ZPE theory requires a high cosmological constant, which would be incompatible with the observed expansion rate of the universe. The "hyperspace tap" theory requires that hyperspace is filled with mass/energy, which may or may not be true. The wormhole theory requires that an artificial wormhole can be created which is anchored at one end and moved freely about at the other end, and this may not be strictly impossible but it definitely stretches credibility. However, the theory seems to suffer from fewer flaws than competing theories, and if true, it would explain the following:

* The Death Star's vast energy production capabilities
* The Death Star's lack of fuel tanks
* The absence of side-effects from massive onboard mass/energy storage, such as gravitational effects on the Endor sanctuary moon.

The theory requires that the reactor be capable of drawing as much as 1E38 joules out of its mass/energy source to fire its weapon without having to store the energy beforehand (hence the lack of gravitational effects upon the Endor sanctuary moon), which begs the question of why it requires a long delay between firings. The theory has been advanced, as described in numerous official texts, that it was "recharging". However, this seems bizarre: in what sort of batteries or capacitors is this "charge" being contained? An alternate, and perhaps more realistic possibility is that the refire delay was due to the need to vent enormous amounts of waste heat from reactor subsystems, coolant systems, superlaser subsystems, etc. before firing again. Upper limits on the rate of heat dissipation may have dictated the refire delays rather than any energy generation restriction.

[Ghost Rider]

For logistics...given that the Alliance was prepared to strike at the DS instead of a convoy, usually it's pretty safe to presume that logistics are either very minor to it's overall maintence or it doesn't require them.

That's complete bullshit. You have an enemy destroyer heading towards your primary base of operations. Are you seriously going to attack it's "supply" lines of convoy ships? This also makes the ridiculas assumption that any type of resupply convoy(which the DS shouldn't need) is a endless line of ships that are a 24/7 operation. No one is saying the DS needs convoys or needs to refuel and resupply every ten hours. My car is "self sufficient" so long as it has gas in the tank and all parts are in working order. But what you're suggesting is like a quick observation of said vehicle moving at 100kph and assuming it does not require maintenace, resupply or refueling. The DS has the resources to destroy a single planet, and apparently without resupply or refueling, try to destroy another. Do you think it's really logical to assume then it never needs to resupply or refuel?

So rather then planning to attack your gas station I should attack the car?

Amazing given that they needed the tactical detail of said station rather then find the convoy.

Given that it's meant to assail a Galactic civilzation, it better damn well be self sufficent or all anyone has to do is attack it's supply route and you've effectively killed the any threat the station has.

Unless you want to assume it's safer to assualt the DS instead of a convoy no matter how well armed.

And the DS needs a convey because...? It's mobile itself, it shouldn't need any. It just needs some refueling depots to head towards. And how the hell is attacking the DS's theoritcal convoy going to stop it from destroying your base of operations?

So where's these massive supply depots that the Alliance should've attacked rather then assail the Death Star?

You also evaded the point...why should I attack the Death Star when I can cripple it completely from it's supplies?

That and we never heard in canon or EU the DS ever needing refueling thus you would have to provide proof it did something that was never once mentioned.

Correction. The burden of proof is on you. You cannot state the DS does not require refueling and resupply, and demand I present proof that it requires it. You must provide proof the DS in completely self sufficient to justify any such claim. Look at real world examples. Find any military vehicle of any type that does not require refueling and resupply at some point.

And once again you evaded the point...where are the depots anywhere in canon or EU?

You are making the assumption that it MUST require some form of refueling regardless that neither canon or EU has ever shown such a thing.

[Robert Walper]

Let's break this down simply. We have a mobile DeathStar battlestation, the size of a small moon, with extraordinary firepower and shielding.

There's a main reactor for the thing. It "fuels" the following systems(if not all of them):
-Firepower
-Mobility
-Shielding
-The ability to convert energy into matter, thus not requiring resupply in the form of material.

My point still stands. What makes the capacity of the reactor so indefinite, or so vast that we can extrapolate the DS being capable of destroying thousands of worlds without first expiring the reactor that feeds it's capabilities? Do nuclear power plants have indefinite lifespans? What is the lifespan of the DS's main reactor? The more energy a reactor is required to pump out, shouldn't that significantly shorten the lifespan of said reactor?

[Patrick Degan]

Let's break this down simply. We have a mobile DeathStar battlestation, the size of a small moon, with extraordinary firepower and shielding.

There's a main reactor for the thing. It "fuels" the following systems(if not all of them):
-Firepower
-Mobility
-Shielding
-The ability to convert energy into matter, thus not requiring resupply in the form of material.

My point still stands. What makes the capacity of the reactor so indefinite, or so vast that we can extrapolate the DS being capable of destroying thousands of worlds without first expiring the reactor that feeds it's capabilities? Do nuclear power plants have indefinite lifespans? What is the lifespan of the DS's main reactor? The more energy a reactor is required to pump out, shouldn't that significantly shorten the lifespan of said reactor?

Translation: "The Death Star requires refueling because it does because it does because it does because it does..."

[Robert Walper]

For logistics...given that the Alliance was prepared to strike at the DS instead of a convoy, usually it's pretty safe to presume that logistics are either very minor to it's overall maintence or it doesn't require them.

That's complete bullshit. You have an enemy destroyer heading towards your primary base of operations. Are you seriously going to attack it's "supply" lines of convoy ships? This also makes the ridiculas assumption that any type of resupply convoy(which the DS shouldn't need) is a endless line of ships that are a 24/7 operation. No one is saying the DS needs convoys or needs to refuel and resupply every ten hours. My car is "self sufficient" so long as it has gas in the tank and all parts are in working order. But what you're suggesting is like a quick observation of said vehicle moving at 100kph and assuming it does not require maintenace, resupply or refueling. The DS has the resources to destroy a single planet, and apparently without resupply or refueling, try to destroy another. Do you think it's really logical to assume then it never needs to resupply or refuel?

So rather then planning to attack your gas station I should attack the car?

If my car is about to run you over, you're going to attack the gas station it just came from because once you do that, my car will magically stop and you'll be saved?

I suppose destroying all gas stations within reach of my car is much easier than destroying the car, right?

Amazing given that they needed the tactical detail of said station rather then find the convoy.

Destroying this theoritcal(and frankly unnecessary) convoy isn't going to save a planet or two, or make the DS magically harmless.

Given that it's meant to assail a Galactic civilzation,

Terrorize, not assail. What, a guy with a gun has to have enough bullets to kill an entire crowd before said crowd feels threatened and even capitulates? Puh-lease...

it better damn well be self sufficent or all anyone has to do is attack it's supply route and you've effectively killed the any threat the station has.

I see. So you're of the mind that if you're in a crowd threatened by a madman with a gun, destroying all factories that make bullets will nullify him as a threat, and be much easier to boot than simply dealing with the guy himself?

Explain why supply routes are necessary when the DS's mobility would make them unnecessary.

And the DS needs a convey because...? It's mobile itself, it shouldn't need any. It just needs some refueling depots to head towards. And how the hell is attacking the DS's theoritcal convoy going to stop it from destroying your base of operations?

So where's these massive supply depots that the Alliance should've attacked rather then assail the Death Star?

So the Empire doesn't have supply depots now? What, all their military craft are completely self sufficent and require absolutely nothing once built? Ever?

You also evaded the point...why should I attack the Death Star when I can cripple it completely from it's supplies?

No, I didn't. You seem convinced that destroying all the DS's resupply points(which should be guarded) would be far easier to do than destroying the DS itself, and also think that doing so instantly makes the DS helpless and completely harmless.

And once again you evaded the point...where are the depots anywhere in canon or EU?

I didn't realize the Empire's military infrastructure was based upon magic where once they build something, it's self sufficient for all eternity.

You are making the assumption that it MUST require some form of refueling regardless that neither canon or EU has ever shown such a thing.

Simple logic. Name one military craft in existence in the real world that does not require resupply/refueling.

[Ghost Rider]

And so your response is...Let's ignore what we have and assume that the Death Star is analogous to a modern warship and must need refueling but the Rebellion instead of attacking these mystical depots/convoys...instead attack the station itself regardless of which is more logical because well...these mystical depots must exist even though they have never been shown, detailed, or even surmised throughout any of the EU or canon thoughts.

Right.

[Robert Walper]

Robert, you have asserted that the Death Star cannot possibly destroy thousands of worlds

I have not. I have not said it cannot possibly do so, I merely question such a capability under a given criteria. When I said destroyed, I meant in the manner displayed against Alderaan. If we're changing the energy output per planet by a factor of thousands, then destroying said thousands of planets becomes easily possible, just not in the manner as seen against Alderaan.

even though it is canon fact that it applied enough energy to Alderaan to destroy one million worlds, and was ready to do it again at Yavin.

So it wasted that much energy on a single world. Can it waste that much for thousands? That's my arguement.

My impression was the argument being the DS was going to destroy these thousands of Borg worlds in the same manner(ie: same energy output) as seen against Alderaan. I've seen no evidence to indicate the DS could do this.

In other words, even if we assume it was only capable of firing just two Alderaan-level shots, we know for a fact that it can easily use its already-established capabilities to destroy hundreds of thousands of worlds with the same amount of energy, by simply using lower-powered shots.

Without a doubt. The confusion seems to stem from the fact I was thinking destroyed in terms of the Alderaan blast. "Destroying" a world being a variable description.

It is not mere speculation to say that its energy reserves are ridiculously large.

Of course not. I suggested no such thing(hopefully).

PS. Like it or not, its lack of a supply convoy and support fleet do obviously indicate that it was designed to operate independently. However, either way your assertion is utterly invalid.

The confusion seems to have stemmed from the interpretation of "destroying thousands of worlds". I took this to mean the DS firing at the energy output witnessed against Alderaan thousands of times. I argued against this being just asserted without facts, but my interpretation of what others here may have been arguing was flawed.

I stand corrected.

[Patrick Degan]

Robert, at this point you are ignoring evidence which is inconvenient to your argument to defend an unsupportable position. The canon material clearly shows Death Star I operating with no support of any kind whatsoever (SW:ANH), the second Death Star 75% completed with no presence of constructor ships, supply vessels, external construction facilities of any sort visible, and sufficently operational to power its superlaser and manoeuvring engines (SW:ROTJ), and the Death Star cutaway diagramme in SWICS showing a decided lack of fuel tanks of any sort (same for the stardestroyer cutaway view in the same book). The novel Han Solo At Star's End describes the Empire's duplicator technology which can produce any type of machine part from raw material. The novel Shadows Of The Empire describes how Death Star II was constructed to 75% completeness within a timeframe of six months and that duplicators were employed on a huge scale, with Prince Xisor's transports bringing nothing but unprocessed raw materials to the Endor construction site in the project's opening phases. The Death Star is built around its reactor core, which means simply swapping it out for a new core is not feasible —which with the lack of fuel tankage clearly points to a reactor of long endurance containing its fuel supply within the core.

All of this points to a situation which your attempted parallels to a 20th century wet-navy simply do not apply.

[Patrick Degan]

Name one military craft in existence in the real world that does not require resupply/refueling.

In point of fact, a modern day nuclear submarine is largely independent of resupply and refueling. It can make its own oxygen and potable water through electrolysis. It's reactor core will sustain the boat's operation for twenty years, and the reactors for the US Navy's Virginia-class NSSNs are designed to last through the boat's estimated 30-year service life. The only restrictions on an SSN's operations are food and the occasional necessity for repairs, and if they were capable of mounting their own machine shops and hydroponic farms, they wouldn't even need to return to base for anything other than crew rotation.

[mauldooku]

-snip-

Why would it need to waste that much energy against the thousand worlds it is attacking? The DS used that much energy becuase it had to punch through Alderaan's shields. As the Borg worlds have no shield, it wouldn't need to use that much energy against each.

[Shrykull]

Name one military craft in existence in the real world that does not require resupply/refueling.

In point of fact, a modern day nuclear submarine is largely independent of resupply and refueling.

Yes, Largely, not totally although I disagree with Robert as well, the DS must have to refuel at some point, whether it's a million years down the road.

[Robert Walper]

-snip-

Why would it need to waste that much energy against the thousand worlds it is attacking? The DS used that much energy becuase it had to punch through Alderaan's shields. As the Borg worlds have no shield, it wouldn't need to use that much energy against each.

I didn't see myself arguing planetary shielding for the Borg...?

[Ender]

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/DeathStar.html

Death Star had 3 years of supplies

Pretty much kills the argument Rob. Especially when you consider that the published stuff there is all lower then what we observe in the movies, indicating that the 3 years is too low as well.

[Robert Walper]

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/DeathStar.html

Death Star had 3 years of supplies

Pretty much kills the argument Rob. Especially when you consider that the published stuff there is all lower then what we observe in the movies, indicating that the 3 years is too low as well.

I'd hoped it was obivous I've conceded the arguement...?

[Ender]

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/DeathStar.html

Death Star had 3 years of supplies

Pretty much kills the argument Rob. Especially when you consider that the published stuff there is all lower then what we observe in the movies, indicating that the 3 years is too low as well.

I'd hoped it was obivous I've conceded the arguement...?

It was 3 in the morning, I didn't do my best reading. sorry

[mauldooku]

-snip-

Why would it need to waste that much energy against the thousand worlds it is attacking? The DS used that much energy becuase it had to punch through Alderaan's shields. As the Borg worlds have no shield, it wouldn't need to use that much energy against each.

I didn't see myself arguing planetary shielding for the Borg...?

Then why would the DS need to employ the same amount of energy in the destruction of Alderaan against the Borg worlds?

[Robert Walper]

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/DeathStar.html

Death Star had 3 years of supplies

Pretty much kills the argument Rob. Especially when you consider that the published stuff there is all lower then what we observe in the movies, indicating that the 3 years is too low as well.

I'd hoped it was obivous I've conceded the arguement...?

It was 3 in the morning, I didn't do my best reading. sorry

Hey, no problem at all man. It's not like I haven't done that on more than one occasion. I'm sure we could find plenty here willing to vouch for me in that area.

[Robert Walper]

Why would it need to waste that much energy against the thousand worlds it is attacking? The DS used that much energy becuase it had to punch through Alderaan's shields. As the Borg worlds have no shield, it wouldn't need to use that much energy against each.

I didn't see myself arguing planetary shielding for the Borg...?

Then why would the DS need to employ the same amount of energy in the destruction of Alderaan against the Borg worlds?

It wouldn't, but that was the angle I was working from. I was under the impression that everyone was saying the DS could destroy thousands of worlds exactly as it did Alderaan, rather than simply the DS's canon energy output being sufficent to destroy thousands of unshielded worlds. They don't need to be blown into fragments to be considered destroyed, just kill every Borg on the surface. A mistake on my part due to interpretation of the thread. My bad.

Again, don't ever expect me to claim being some ingenius debater, I need a lot of work.

[Tribun]

Hmmm...Robert Walper.....

I think, I remember something with that name. Ah yes, there is a Robert Walper in Mike's hate mail page. I wonder if he and this Walper are one and the same.....?
If you don't konw what I'm talking about:
Robert Walper Hate mail.

[Robert Walper]

Hmmm...Robert Walper.....

I think, I remember something with that name. Ah yes, there is a Robert Walper in Mike's hate mail page. I wonder if he and this Walper are one and the same.....?
If you don't konw what I'm talking about:
Robert Walper Hate mail.

Ahhh...youth and ignorance...those were the days...

[Shrykull]

Hmmm...Robert Walper.....

I think, I remember something with that name. Ah yes, there is a Robert Walper in Mike's hate mail page. I wonder if he and this Walper are one and the same.....?
If you don't konw what I'm talking about:
Robert Walper Hate mail.

Ahhh...youth and ignorance...those were the days...

youth? I thought maybe you are at least 30, just a guess.

[Robert Walper]

Hmmm...Robert Walper.....

I think, I remember something with that name. Ah yes, there is a Robert Walper in Mike's hate mail page. I wonder if he and this Walper are one and the same.....?
If you don't konw what I'm talking about:
Robert Walper Hate mail.

Ahhh...youth and ignorance...those were the days...

youth? I thought maybe you are at least 30, just a guess.

LOL...no way...How long ago was that? 4-5 yeards ago? I was only 18 then. I'm 23 now, and hopefully a little wiser.

[Shrykull]

Ahhh...youth and ignorance...those were the days...

youth? I thought maybe you are at least 30, just a guess.

LOL...no way...How long ago was that? 4-5 yeards ago? I was only 18 then. I'm 23 now, and hopefully a little wiser.

Ok, so it was an assumption on my part, it just looks like a name a mature adult would call himself, Robert rather than Bob or Rob.

[Robert Walper]

Ok, so it was an assumption on my part, it just looks like a name a mature adult would call himself, Robert rather than Bob or Rob.

Blah! I hate the name Bob, and Rob I tolerate well enough.

But I'll take your statement as a compliment.

Unless you're implying I'm not like a mature adult.