StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This video is a good primer on why heaps of mass and energy =/= faster terraforming:

Jub wrote: 2017-08-10 11:38pmAlso, all it takes is one expansionist group to do this colonization a single planet with tech thousands of years out of date compared to the galactic pace is still going to possess the capacity to send a sphere of probes out to explore and catalog every system in the galaxy in a matter of centuries.

We all know the galaxy has been mapped (apart from one elder Jedi librarian). What we don't know is why it isn't overpopulated. And yet the planets we are shown "on the frontier" are sparsely populated, but there are still people there. Apart from armed conflict, we aren't being shown why there aren't humanoids everywhere. So what's left? Cultural values? Giant space goats? Narrative tone?

Everywhere likely doesn't include empty pockets located far from any star.

That's signature-able.

Strange how "nowhere" tends to be (in terms of the movies) where everything starts. Alternately, getting to stars tends to cross a lot of those "empty pockets" of space, and they're likely to be listening along the way. While ESB perhaps suggests the alternate, the Empire isn't limited to "a one-in-a-million" fishing expedition. They would have intelligence sources (what was just a hooded cloak and goofy plastic mask in ANH turned into "spies everywhere" in Rogue One.) Oh, yeah, right: and that Vader guy, using that "hokey religion" (and ancient weapon.)

we're talking about setting up in literal empty space knowing that your fleet and high command are unlikely to ever be found so long as they base out of such a hidden location.

From a narrative standpoint: if you are impossible to find, you remove tension from your WAR STORY and remove the impetus for individual heroics.
ANH: "Oh noes! the Death Star is going to blow up... some planet... eventually! We should really get deep analysis of those plans and formulate an attack! Before lunch? After lunch? Maybe pencil me in for tomorrow afternoon? I'm fishing for empathy sex from the Princess...."
ESB: "Red Group: you get to hit more Imperial convoys. No, Luke, you need to stay with Red Group, we don't loan out our strike craft for 'personal growth' missions. You saw a ghost of your dead friend on Hoth who told you to go to Dagobah? Medical! Skywalker needs a full evaluation! And he's grounded." "Captain Solo, you really should have asked for assistance before, but your ship's been repaired. Hate to lose you. Good luck. Not that an underworld crime boss would have an even more difficult time finding you than the fucking empire, apart from the bounty hunters we already ran into on Ord Mandel in the course of doing stuff that wasn't hiding in our cool space clubhouse. Come to think of it, you're a threat to us: Security! Escort Captain Solo to the brig. We'll probably have to kill the wookie." "Princess, we have a mission (fund-raiser/rabble-rouser/photo-op) for you. Captain Lago here will be your director. Would you like to write your own material? We have a pretty good copy-writing team...."
RotJ: "Good thing we aren't massing out fleet (near Sullust) for an attack, the Imperials would be sure to hear about that!"

You can't move masses as large as planets around quickly unless you're willing to put in a lot of effort to do so.

Or just use repulsors (or tractor beams?). Legends included a thing for tractor-beaming planets around (at super-luminal ranges [ I think - I never read it]). When I mentioned an X-wing, I was unclear: I meant repulsors, not thrusters; un-gravity-ing yourself out of a gravity well. It was a half-cooked idea about using repulsor tech to push against the star to move the planet away slowly over time - if that's even how they work - and I don't know if Luke's X-wing or landspeeder had a "footprint" on just the ground immediately beneath it, or it pushed against the planet's center of mass. If CoM, put a satellite into the proper orbit (or repulsor-held position relative to the planet) and use the planet's and star's CoMs to jockey them around. I don't know how the tech works.

As to the Venus/Mars terraforming vid: Star Wars doesn't just have energy, they have advanced industrial tech. Need to bleed off half of Venus' atmosphere, and un-bind the other half from carbon? Need a fake magnetosphere for Mars? Doable. "Do you want the carbon in blocks, sheets, rods, or these pretty uncut gemstones? They would make a decent beach.... We can throw a magnetic shield around your little red planet, some surplus world devastators that can just, um, poop out raw iron and release oxygen, and we've got a deal on some green-house gasses from one of your neighbors they could split, too. 'We know how to carbon-bank (tm)'."

Obviously it takes processes beyond current Earth tech, but if even current Earth tech can find theoretical solutions, a space-faring civilization would have practice actually doing it. The only thing missing in the setting is the motivation.

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 11:46amWe all know the galaxy has been mapped (apart from one elder Jedi librarian). What we don't know is why it isn't overpopulated. And yet the planets we are shown "on the frontier" are sparsely populated, but there are still people there. Apart from armed conflict, we aren't being shown why there aren't humanoids everywhere. So what's left? Cultural values? Giant space goats? Narrative tone?

It has to be cultural values and massive levels of enforcement. Otherwise it doesn't take much to decide to pack up and leave any planet that doesn't suit you and found one that does. Narrating tone and a lack of sense for scale by Lucas and those who wrote stories based off his films are the out of universe reason.

That's signature-able.

Strange how "nowhere" tends to be (in terms of the movies) where everything starts. Alternately, getting to stars tends to cross a lot of those "empty pockets" of space, and they're likely to be listening along the way. While ESB perhaps suggests the alternate, the Empire isn't limited to "a one-in-a-million" fishing expedition. They would have intelligence sources (what was just a hooded cloak and goofy plastic mask in ANH turned into "spies everywhere" in Rogue One.) Oh, yeah, right: and that Vader guy, using that "hokey religion" (and ancient weapon.)

Getting to stars from other stars tends to follow set paths both IRL and in Star Wars. We know they stick to hyperlanes for their interstellar trips so unless you want to send a very dense probe she'll out to comb the vast spaces between stars good luck finding a fleet base 5ly or so from the nearest cluster of stars.

Their intelligence services are pretty hit and miss and Vader was never shown using the force any of the times he found the rebels. He didn't even notice Obi Wan until he was aboard the DS.

From a narrative standpoint: if you are impossible to find, you remove tension from your WAR STORY and remove the impetus for individual heroics.
ANH: "Oh noes! the Death Star is going to blow up... some planet... eventually! We should really get deep analysis of those plans and formulate an attack! Before lunch? After lunch? Maybe pencil me in for tomorrow afternoon? I'm fishing for empathy sex from the Princess...."
ESB: "Red Group: you get to hit more Imperial convoys. No, Luke, you need to stay with Red Group, we don't loan out our strike craft for 'personal growth' missions. You saw a ghost of your dead friend on Hoth who told you to go to Dagobah? Medical! Skywalker needs a full evaluation! And he's grounded." "Captain Solo, you really should have asked for assistance before, but your ship's been repaired. Hate to lose you. Good luck. Not that an underworld crime boss would have an even more difficult time finding you than the fucking empire, apart from the bounty hunters we already ran into on Ord Mandel in the course of doing stuff that wasn't hiding in our cool space clubhouse. Come to think of it, you're a threat to us: Security! Escort Captain Solo to the brig. We'll probably have to kill the wookie." "Princess, we have a mission (fund-raiser/rabble-rouser/photo-op) for you. Captain Lago here will be your director. Would you like to write your own material? We have a pretty good copy-writing team...."
RotJ: "Good thing we aren't massing out fleet (near Sullust) for an attack, the Imperials would be sure to hear about that!"

This is so not true. Having a series about constant witch hunts for spies as rebel leadership becomes increasingly paranoid and isolated would make for an amazing war story. Especially when they try to ground the hero who destroyed the Death Star to save a critical manufacturing base from destruction. Or when they try to imprision the smuggler who transported one of their commanders to safety. The whole setup reeks of tension and drama.

Or just use repulsors (or tractor beams?).

No you can't not without structurally reinforcing the planet. Tidal bulging alone would kill the idea of using a tractor beam, not to mention how much atmosphere you'd draw off trying to get a firm enough grip to move something planet sized.

Then you get the waste heat, even using a tractor beam doesn't make the planet immune to the heat the stresses of moving it that quickly will cause. No process is 100% efficient and that inefficiency will lead to waste heat. Even at something like 1% of the energy needed turning into waste heat still bakes your planet without serious engineering to prevent it. Star Wars could do this, but making thousands of space habitats is actually easier and less resource intensive even for them.

Legends included a thing for tractor-beaming planets around (at super-luminal ranges [ I think - I never read it])

You mean Centerpoint, the ancient tech that can only be used by a very powerful Jedi? That space station that littreally even said Jedi don't know much about? Yeah, how about we don't count one off tech that isn't understood.

When I mentioned an X-wing, I was unclear: I meant repulsors, not thrusters; un-gravity-ing yourself out of a gravity well. It was a half-cooked idea about using repulsor tech to push against the star to move the planet away slowly over time - if that's even how they work - and I don't know if Luke's X-wing or landspeeder had a "footprint" on just the ground immediately beneath it, or it pushed against the planet's center of mass. If CoM, put a satellite into the proper orbit (or repulsor-held position relative to the planet) and use the planet's and star's CoMs to jockey them around. I don't know how the tech works.

You can't blame me for not wanting to do your homework. If you want to prove your point, prove it. If not let the adults talk.

As to the Venus/Mars terraforming vid: Star Wars doesn't just have energy, they have advanced industrial tech. Need to bleed off half of Venus' atmosphere, and un-bind the other half from carbon? Need a fake magnetosphere for Mars? Doable. "Do you want the carbon in blocks, sheets, rods, or these pretty uncut gemstones? They would make a decent beach.... We can throw a magnetic shield around your little red planet, some surplus world devastators that can just, um, poop out raw iron and release oxygen, and we've got a deal on some green-house gasses from one of your neighbors they could split, too. 'We know how to carbon-bank (tm)'."

Obviously it takes processes beyond current Earth tech, but if even current Earth tech can find theoretical solutions, a space-faring civilization would have practice actually doing it. The only thing missing in the setting is the motivation.

It's also more work than building space stations and possiby even more work than building a planet from scratch (something we know they can do). You've yet to make the argument for why they would do things your way when it's literally the worst way to make more living space. Also, can you find me an example of them actually having done this with tech they can build and understand?

Jub wrote: 2017-08-14 03:52pm

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 11:46amWe all know the galaxy has been mapped (apart from one elder Jedi librarian). What we don't know is why it isn't overpopulated. And yet the planets we are shown "on the frontier" are sparsely populated, but there are still people there. Apart from armed conflict, we aren't being shown why there aren't humanoids everywhere. So what's left? Cultural values? Giant space goats? Narrative tone?

It has to be cultural values and massive levels of enforcement. Otherwise it doesn't take much to decide to pack up and leave any planet that doesn't suit you and found one that does. Narrating tone and a lack of sense for scale by Lucas and those who wrote stories based off his films are the out of universe reason.

One thing to remember is that even here on Earth, with Skype and air travel and all that, people are still reluctant to pull up roots and move halfway across the planet. The average person isn't going to care to move from (to take a random example) New York to London. Moving isn't really something one does on a whim, generally, as even within the same town, it can be a massive investment in time and energy. Presumably, ease of space travel and all that aside, similar concerns still apply in the Star Wars universe. If places are sparsely populated, likely there's a reason for that. Tattooine, for example-- people would rather NOT live on an arid desert planet. Who would've thought.

Jub wrote:

Khaat wrote:I don't know how the tech works.

You can't blame me for not wanting to do your homework.

Oh, sure, let me pull some non-existent maths out of my ass so you can shoot them down for not being sourced. Well, crap: there are no clear examples of limits listed for this technology (though I suppose you could imply Centerpoint Station is an upper limit - for throwing stars around or blowing them up with gravitational effects ), but nothing to shoot down regarding how much infrastructure is needed on-site to tow your planet around. Yay! Absence of sources vanquish the entire concept based on my poor choice of engine (X-wing) and time-frame (2 years) for the tech! Oh, wait, they only defeat the specific example, not the idea!

But first, some of those incomplete sources before it all flies apart:

starwars.wikia.com wrote: Repulsorlifts only worked within a gravity well, as the technology required mass to push against. For a typical habitable planet such as Alderaan, "antigrav range" was approximately six planetary diameters, or around seventy-five thousand kilometers. Repulsorlifts used minimal power and were reliable enough to be utilized continuously.
*snip*
The five planets of the Corellian system possessed massive repulsors on their surface. They were so powerful that they could destroy capital ships in nearby space, and even stop the devastating firepower of Centerpoint Station, which created gravitational shifts great enough to destroy stars.

The Verpine of the Roche asteroids utilized repulsorlifts in asteroid shepherding.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Repulsorlift/Legends
What they can do, what they are used for, nothing immediately significant to work with, numbers-wise. But, hey, they consume a "low", non-zero amount of energy!
- Pretty bad-ass, though: Corellian planetary repulsors could counteract a system designed to flux with stars!
- Range of 6 diameters with zero cross-example for smaller or larger objects - so what's the function? Mass? Density? Raw gravity? At six diameters (76,536 km) from Earth (5.972+E24 kg), you (roughly 100 kg) experience 6.80 Newtons. If we use that as an upper limit for range, a star Sol's gravity well should stop working for a repulsorcraft at...
1.988E+30kg (Sol mass)
6.80 Newtons = at 4.415E+7 km (0.295 AU)
[Newton's Law of Gravity Calculator from http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/ne ... p#ajscroll ]
Honestly, a bit of a shock, I expected a star would reach further. Well, crap, not even Mercury could be pushed off the sun (Mercury is 0.307AU at its closest). Looks like Venus and Mars are too far for a natural gravity well repulsorlift effect.

Artificial gravity generators were used to create a stable field of gravity outside of a planet's natural gravity well, thus aiding life in space.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Artifici ... or/Legends
Related tech (?), same issue: no numbers to work, though one could presume 1 G standard gravity for humanoids? But there are heavy-worlders in the Empire, too, right? and some that like lighter gravity?

A gravity disk or gravitational disk was a device found in the decks of spaceships designed to maintain gravity.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Gravity_disk
But why not complicate the tech tree further:

The inertial compensator, also known as the inertial damper, acceleration compensator, deceleration compensator, deceleration equalizer, or drive compensator was a technology used in starships, especially in starfighters and other high-performance vessels. It compensated for the intense accelerations that a spaceship underwent in the course of its normal activities; without compensators, ships would either have to accelerate much more slowly, or kill their occupants with excessive g-forces.

Inertial compensators were often dialed back from full power by experienced pilots (from 97 to 95 percent), giving them just enough inertia to feel how the ship was performing without negatively impacting their ability to pilot the ship.
*snip*
Inertial compensators may or may not be the same as repulsor-compensators.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Inertial_compensator
Small ray of sunshine there: if an inertial compensator/deck grav plate is dialed to 100%, a pilot presumably wouldn't have any "feels" for what the ship was doing: I can push your planet around while you sleep safe in your bed, and you won't know until the stars are different tomorrow night. We're back to the tech allowing for accelerations at ridiculous rates (say that X-Wing) being cancelled inside the inertial compensator field. So much for "incinerating the planet". No brief on how big a device for how big a field, not described data points on functional unit size (unless you count the car-alternator-sized blob in ICS books for a starfighter) or field volume/mass limits.

~~~some hand-wave because the limits of the tech are not discussed regarding mass limits, field size limits, or motive capacity (but it is enough for small artificial moon-sized space stations, like DS I & II, to not be ripped apart by their acceleration or tidal forces even while under construction, which while a "fun fact" doesn't help with any limit numbers)~~~

Welcome to your relocated planet. Oh, but hey, you had already said this:

Jub wrote:they could shield the world, use internal compensators, and radiate away the heat using the same systems an ISD uses scaled up to cover a planet however at this stage why are we doing this at all? You can get the same effect using mirrors at a fraction of the mass and energy required to move the planet. Simply having more energy doesn't make moving planets practical.

Hmm, practical. There's that word.

practical
adjective
1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
2. so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.

Inigo Montoya wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But true: it isn't just energy but the tech they could employ, so there is that cut-out.

"OOOOOOH, but lots of power! Other options use less of that cheap power!"
Yeah, fuck off, that's the point of the thread.

Elheru Aran wrote: 2017-08-14 04:44pm

Jub wrote: 2017-08-14 03:52pm

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 11:46amWe all know the galaxy has been mapped (apart from one elder Jedi librarian). What we don't know is why it isn't overpopulated. And yet the planets we are shown "on the frontier" are sparsely populated, but there are still people there. Apart from armed conflict, we aren't being shown why there aren't humanoids everywhere. So what's left? Cultural values? Giant space goats? Narrative tone?

It has to be cultural values and massive levels of enforcement. Otherwise it doesn't take much to decide to pack up and leave any planet that doesn't suit you and found one that does. Narrating tone and a lack of sense for scale by Lucas and those who wrote stories based off his films are the out of universe reason.

One thing to remember is that even here on Earth, with Skype and air travel and all that, people are still reluctant to pull up roots and move halfway across the planet. The average person isn't going to care to move from (to take a random example) New York to London. Moving isn't really something one does on a whim, generally, as even within the same town, it can be a massive investment in time and energy. Presumably, ease of space travel and all that aside, similar concerns still apply in the Star Wars universe. If places are sparsely populated, likely there's a reason for that. Tattooine, for example-- people would rather NOT live on an arid desert planet. Who would've thought.

It's less that certain planets are sparsely populated rather it's that most stars in the universe should have been colonized long ago. Even if 99.99% of people have no desire to ever colonize anything that 0.01% of people should have filled in the universe over the thousands of years that the Star Wars galaxy has had FTL travel. Even accounting for the precise mapping needed for hyperlanes there is no reason that every star wouldn't already have some outpost, space station, hippy commune, etc. around it.

Think of here on Earth where colonizing a new land often took a months long journey across the ocean with a risk of death along the way and a very low chance of you ever seeing anything you left behind. We've still covered almost all of the bits worth covering. Now take a months long trip, take it down to hours or days at the most, reduce the risk of death to that of your average road trip (if not less), and automate all the processes needed to setup your dome/space station/automated mining facility and there is literally no reason not to keep expanding.

Now some systems will offer more than others but even a tiny little dwarf star with a sparse few rocks is worth extracting minerals from, even if only for the most marginalized groups. So the question is, why hasn't the population expanded to fill the open space when it is easy to do so and we can show that humans will do so if we can?

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 07:49pmOh, sure, let me pull some non-existent maths out of my ass so you can shoot them down for not being sourced. Well, crap: there are no clear examples of limits listed for this technology (though I suppose you could imply Centerpoint Station is an upper limit - for throwing stars around or blowing them up with gravitational effects ), but nothing to shoot down regarding how much infrastructure is needed on-site to tow your planet around. Yay! Absence of sources vanquish the entire concept based on my poor choice of engine (X-wing) and time-frame (2 years) for the tech! Oh, wait, they only defeat the specific example, not the idea!

Except that you never outlined your idea with any detail or provided proof that your method is easier or more desirable than other options open to them. Even if people can do something, and I've stated that Star Wars does have the technology to do so, they need a reason to do so when other easier options exist.

<snipped>

I'm not sure why you spammed all of that when I already stated that they CAN move planets if they so wish. In fact, you missed the very simple example of proving that a very large mass can be moved at FTL speeds mainly the various Death Stars in the movies and Legends EU. Also, those repulsors on Corellia et al. were very likely made by the same people who made Centerpoint the latter of which is an irreproducible bit of technology.

Hmm, practical. There's that word.

practical
adjective
1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
2. so nearly the case that it can be regarded as so; virtual.

Inigo Montoya wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But true: it isn't just energy but the tech they could employ, so there is that cut-out.

"OOOOOOH, but lots of power! Other options use less of that cheap power!"
Yeah, fuck off, that's the point of the thread.

Again, it's not just that they can do something, for example:

If I was to get in shape, I could go around everywhere while walking on my hands however it isn't practical to do so. Even were I able to move at full walking pace and wouldn't injure my hands/wrists doing so long term, the world simply isn't designed around people walking in this fashion and I would restrict my field of view greatly in doing so.

In much the same way, we know that most factions in Star Wars can easily manufacture space stations to live in. We also know that these space stations, due to artificial gravity, climate control, etc. can be tailored to exactly the specifications to allow for maximal comfort across a wide variety of species. Thus a space station can be made more livable than any planet you can name and within that station, you can even tweak things further such that a specific block of buildings has different conditions. Given that this is the cheapest and easiest way to do things (akin to us walking normally) why would anyone choose to move or terraform planets (akin to us walking on our hands)?

Even if you hated space stations for some reason, you could still just build giant domes over

This is what you must show, not that they can do this but that they (they being the modern or near modern Star Wars setting) have done so or had reason to do so over the other options open to them. Given the difficulty we've agreed upon, the onus is on you to show that they would bother with moving planets rather than using the other easier options open to them.

Golly, how about "the Corellian system"? Or do you want something contemporary? How about "Coruscant"?

People like planets. Even accomplished spacers kick it in backwater planet cantinas.

Otherwise, inconvenience (rather than impracticality) hasn't stopped some serious projects in the past, in-universe and out.

Well, sticking strickly to Legends Canon.....

#1 - Hyperdrive is only about 25,000 years old, and wasn't always that fast
#2 - The Republic is only about 25,000 years old, and started in the core.
#3 - There have been other powers the Republic warred with over the centuries.
#4 - Hyperdrive hasn't always been easy for everyone to get. It still isn't really. In Episode IV, Luke had to sell his speeder, the equal of selling his car, to afford passage off planet. That was for 2 people and two droids. Imagine having to sell your car to afford flying from Australia to Los Angeles (I choose that route, as I believe it's the longest continual flight in the world.) That's not cheap and convient.

Anyway, here's my theory on it.
While there are lots of inhabitable worlds, expansion has mostly been outword from the core towards the Rim, with the odd Rim world being inhabited by sentient, tool using species. Expansion has been regulated by the central government and economic factors.

Simply put, no one is going to pay for a new colony unless there is a point to establishing it. With space-borne mining and manufacturing, it might be more economically feasible to stay close to the core systems, and strip them of all resources of value before moving out.

Colonization of a new world would only happen when situational demands required it. (i.e local lifeforms, setting up farming, extremely valuable and large deposits of raw materials, or rich people wanting to set up their own little fiefdom).

Hell, even Grand Moff Wilfrud Tarkin's world hasn't been inhabited for very long compared to how long hyperdrive has been around.

That's one theory anyway.

The other is: We only have seen the worlds based on narrative needs.
Prequel trilogy: Healthy mix. Deliberately low populated world to keep it beautiful (Naboo), dense populated (Coruscant), Low populated slum world (Tattooine), Factory World with apparent a big underworld civilization (Geonosis), another underground civilization (Utapau), and a Mining World (Mustafar). That's pretty diverse.

Original trilogy: Mostly low-populated worlds. (Aldeeran was supposed to be similiar to Naboo). This makes sense, as we are seeing things through the eyes of people on the run from the galactic government. This is equal to hiding in the slums to avoid the cops.

Rogue One: Densely populated area, then a secret rebel base, then a secret military base, then a 'mining settlement', then finally a miltiary outpost.

Sequel trilogy: So far, a galactic capital, a moon-sized battlestation, a hidden military base, and a planet the Jedi apparently kept hidden from everyone.

Realistically, we can't make an accurate prediction of galactic population levels based on what we've seen. That would be like saying Earth has a low population after only touring around Australia (some dense populated areas, but mostly empty).

Solauren wrote: 2017-08-14 08:48pm
#4 - Hyperdrive hasn't always been easy for everyone to get. It still isn't really. In Episode IV, Luke had to sell his speeder, the equal of selling his car, to afford passage off planet. That was for 2 people and two droids. Imagine having to sell your car to afford flying from Australia to Los Angeles (I choose that route, as I believe it's the longest continual flight in the world.) That's not cheap and convient.

That's probably about real-life costs. For 4 people, tickets from LA to Perth would run you about 3200 dollars. https://www.google.com/flights/?f=0&gl= ... 09-03;tt=o. Add in that Han was ripping them off a bit and that the speeder was probably pretty cheap, and it seems like getting from the Rim to the core is if anything easier that getting from LA to Perth. In other words, from their perspective, the galaxy is about the same size as earth and has been settled for much longer. It still being mostly is weird.

Jub wrote: 2017-08-14 08:19pmGiven the difficulty we've agreed upon, the onus is on you to show that they would bother with moving planets rather than using the other easier options open to them.

(Sorry, I was on the bus earlier and couldn't work the quotes accurately)
Starkiller Base. Could have built it into a space station, but chose to keep the planet (and take it through hyperspace as well.) Why? Maybe it was cheaper than hauling off the kyber crystals and making a space station. Maybe the difference in cost isn't what you think it is. Maybe mining an out-of-the-way planet and building the weapon there was better for secrecy than hauling it all out to some random dark and cold corner of empty space.

I agree moving planets is complicated. I'm not so sure about "difficult".

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 08:36pm Golly, how about "the Corellian system"? Or do you want something contemporary? How about "Coruscant"?

People like planets. Even accomplished spacers kick it in backwater planet cantinas.

Otherwise, inconvenience (rather than impracticality) hasn't stopped some serious projects in the past, in-universe and out.

The Corellian system was done in the past and used tech that isn't currently understood.

Coruscant was never moved, at least not using technological means, they treated its climate issues sensibly with orbital mirrors. If you've already got an established planet you might as well improve things there. Coruscant has been a major world for pretty much the entirety of the galaxy's history, at least if we're going with Legends level canon. Using this timeline, Coruscant has been settled for longer than access to hyperdrive has existed. Also, the only time it was moved was when Zonama Sekot, a literal living planet and something we should all be glad was punted to Legends level canon, entered the system.

Solauren wrote: 2017-08-14 08:48pm#1 - Hyperdrive is only about 25,000 years old, and wasn't always that fast

And...? We settled the New World and Australia when doing so meant months long voyages that were like as not to kill anyone taking them with no means of easy communication, let alone travel, with those left at home. I don't see slower hyperdrives causing this level of insanely low population density.

#2 - The Republic is only about 25,000 years old, and started in the core

25,000 years is plenty of time to colonize a galaxy when getting to new star systems only takes months. It gets even more insane when you consider that for at least the last 4,000 years they've had the means to travel much faster than that.

#3 - There have been other powers the Republic warred with over the centuries.

Then why haven't they or some other independent faction colonized and overtaken the Republic? After all, he who holds the most stars has the moset resources.

#4 - Hyperdrive hasn't always been easy for everyone to get. It still isn't really. In Episode IV, Luke had to sell his speeder, the equal of selling his car, to afford passage off planet. That was for 2 people and two droids. Imagine having to sell your car to afford flying from Australia to Los Angeles (I choose that route, as I believe it's the longest continual flight in the world.) That's not cheap and convient.

This is just false. Even in the ass end of the universe where it ought to be hard to get access to a hyperdrive a junkyard owner had one just laying around and a farm boy could sell his outdated car for nearly enough to buy his own ship. They chose to go with Han because speed and secrecy were important and he could offer both.

Anyway, here's my theory on it.
While there are lots of inhabitable worlds, expansion has mostly been outword from the core towards the Rim, with the odd Rim world being inhabited by sentient, tool using species. Expansion has been regulated by the central government and economic factors.

Simply put, no one is going to pay for a new colony unless there is a point to establishing it. With space-borne mining and manufacturing, it might be more economically feasible to stay close to the core systems, and strip them of all resources of value before moving out.

Just from a logistical point of view, this makes no sense. How is any government going to stop independent factions from colonizing when access to FTL space travel is as cheap as a new family sedan?

Also, even if you're peaceful and don't feel threatened, the more systems you can control and mine from, the more secure your position of power is. He who holds more stars holds more resources and he who holds more resources wins wars.

Colonization of a new world would only happen when situational demands required it. (i.e local lifeforms, setting up farming, extremely valuable and large deposits of raw materials, or rich people wanting to set up their own little fiefdom).

This doesn't hold when we look at the real world. People would colonize for more space, for exploration, and for the hell of it, not to mention that every extra star, planet, and asteroid you control is worth something. Given the laws of physics, we know that any given star can be used to make any given element even if that process is as inefficient as using solar panels to power super colliders and literally make new elements. We also know that elements should tend to be distributed fairly evenly among systems of the same age, so any given system should hold as much mineral value as any other. Thus there shouldn't be any systems with wildly more or less resource value from the perspective of a civilization that could casually disassemble planets if it desired to.

The other is: We only have seen the worlds based on narrative needs.
Prequel trilogy: Healthy mix. Deliberately low populated world to keep it beautiful (Naboo), dense populated (Coruscant), Low populated slum world (Tattooine), Factory World with apparent a big underworld civilization (Geonosis), another underground civilization (Utapau), and a Mining World (Mustafar). That's pretty diverse.

Original trilogy: Mostly low-populated worlds. (Aldeeran was supposed to be similiar to Naboo). This makes sense, as we are seeing things through the eyes of people on the run from the galactic government. This is equal to hiding in the slums to avoid the cops.

Rogue One: Densely populated area, then a secret rebel base, then a secret military base, then a 'mining settlement', then finally a miltiary outpost.

Sequel trilogy: So far, a galactic capital, a moon-sized battlestation, a hidden military base, and a planet the Jedi apparently kept hidden from everyone.

Realistically, we can't make an accurate prediction of galactic population levels based on what we've seen. That would be like saying Earth has a low population after only touring around Australia (some dense populated areas, but mostly empty).

If we look at the Legends canon we know that the entire galaxy isn't populated. Even stretched as far as it will go the millions of worlds quote only allows for 999 million stars controlled out of the 100-400 billion stars a Milky Way sized galaxy should hold. That's a density of only 0.25 - 1% if, and this is one very large if, we assume that every system is utilized to capacity. Outside of the most inhospitable places on Earth we never see densities that low. So you'll need a very good reason why someone wouldn't choose to expand to even the choicest 10% of the galaxy instead of sticking to less than a percent of it.

Khaat wrote: 2017-08-14 11:42pm (Sorry, I was on the bus earlier and couldn't work the quotes accurately)
Starkiller Base. Could have built it into a space station, but chose to keep the planet (and take it through hyperspace as well.) Why? Maybe it was cheaper than hauling off the kyber crystals and making a space station. Maybe the difference in cost isn't what you think it is. Maybe mining an out-of-the-way planet and building the weapon there was better for secrecy than hauling it all out to some random dark and cold corner of empty space.

I agree moving planets is complicated. I'm not so sure about "difficult".

No worries on the quotes and short reply.

It might also have been their only option. The Nu-Imperials aren't exactly a massive faction and for them carving shafts into a planet and the building a weapon into it may have been the lesser of two evils once we get to an operation on that scale. After all, no one is saying that making planet sized super weapons is easier than massive planetary reconstruction, just that making reasonably sized stations most certainly is.

Complicated, difficult, it's all still far less practical than space stations, surface domes, and other means of expanding out into the stars.

Jub wrote:The Corellian system was done in the past and used tech that isn't currently understood.

Done in the past, yes. Tech not currently understood? No: SW knows, understands, and uses repulsor techs (repulsorlift, artificial gravity, inertial compensators) every day (and moving planets isn't an impractical choice, e.g. Starkiller Base). Centerpoint Station's unique operation (range, scale, efficiency) may be "beyond their ken" for story reasons, but the technology is basic throughout the galaxy. SW does this a lot with superweapons: "scale never before seen" tends to be the issue, not the tech behind it.

Coruscant was never moved, at least not using technological means, they treated its climate issues sensibly with orbital mirrors. If you've already got an established planet you might as well improve things there.

Huh, and here I thought we were discussing examples of altering things (in this subset, "your planet of choice") with cheap energy. We had narrowed the terms to planet-moving, I suppose. Conceded.

**************************

It has to be cultural values and massive levels of enforcement. Otherwise it doesn't take much to decide to pack up and leave any planet that doesn't suit you and found one that does.

My read would be cultural values, as you yourself later revised:

How is any government going to stop independent factions from colonizing when access to FTL space travel is as cheap as a new family sedan?

And/or possibly heavy predation by outlaws/organized crime, corporate syndicates, etc.. There is much unexplored of the SW universe, and answers to questions like "why aren't there people everywhere?" would probably muddy the waters in stories about the Skywalkers. Hopefully the non-arc films/TV shows will explore some of those ideas, even if just in passing.