"Death Star" Technical Analyses

[Khas 12,158]

As I've decided to re-read the novel "Death Star", I've found some interesting facts. Here they are.

 

- TIE Fighters have no life-support systems, deflector shields, or hyperdive. (Pg. 5 - 6)

 

- A Lambda-class shuttle, the one we see in the films, has a max acceleration of 1400 gs. (Pg. 7) This is the same figure as in the New Essential Guide.

 

- When a Lambda-class shuttle explodes, the energy released is low enough that the bodies of the passengers and crew remain intact. (Pg. 9)

 

- A fleet of SSDs wouldn't be able to pose a threat to the DS. (Pg. 14) Not due to the superlaser, but the sheer number of fighers, turbolasers, ion cannons, proton torpedo banks, particle blasters, and magnetic railguns along with the shields.

 

- As opposed to the Imperial Corps of Engineers, the labor to build the Death Star was provided by droids, Wookiee slaves, and convicts. (any page discussing construction, really.)

 

- Despayre has a gravity of .75 gs. (Pg. 34) Less than Venus' .82 gs. This becomes important later.

 

- An ISD can't destroy a large asteroid, because the size of the reactor needed to pull that off would be impractically huge. (Pg. 57)

 

- The Death Star carried more guns than an Imperial Fleet. (Pg. 120)

 

- A leaky hypermatter valve is enough to vaporize an entire ISD. (Pg. 213)

 

- 2,209 km is considered long-range for weapons, as it was hard to target a 3 km-wide Trade Federation battleship (used by the Rebels) at that distance with the superlaser, and it was out of the question for any of the DS' other weapons to hit it. (Pg. 240)

 

- Four percent of the superlaser's full energy is enough to vaporize a Trade Federation battleship. (Pg. 241)

 

- At thirty percent full power, the superlaser managed to boil away Despayre's oceans and ignite it's atmosphere. (Pg. 268) It took an hour and thirteen minutes to recharge after firing this blast. (Pg. 269) The second shot from the superlaser, again, at thirty percent power, cracked Despayre's crust, and superheated its core, causing magma to well up and form oceans of liquid rock on the surface. (Pg. 271) The third shot, at the same level of power, finally destroyed Despayre. (Pg. 271) The weapon effect was described as a chain reaction. (Pg. 269)

 

- When the Death Star destroyed Alderaan, a good chunk of the planet's mass was shunted into hyperspace, producing that Praxis ring we saw when it was destroyed. (Pg. 291) This happens every time a large amount of mass is sent into hyperspace, as it's described happening when the Death Star explodes. (Pg. 358)

 

Oh, in case any of you think I'm bullshitting you, Tyralak also has this book, and he can confirm these findings.

[Vince 520]

As I've decided to re-read the novel "Death Star", I've found some interesting facts. Here they are.

 

- An ISD can't destroy a large asteroid, because the size of the reactor needed to pull that off would be impractically huge. (Pg. 57)

- A leaky hypermatter valve is enough to vaporize an entire ISD. (Pg. 213)

Okay based on film evidence, the materials used to construct and armour an ISD would be many orders of magnitude more difficult to melt or vaporize than conventional metals, thus unless this asteroid was orders of magnitude larger than the ISD, it dosn't make any sense that it couldn't be vaporized by a small fraction ("leaky valve") of the reactors total output.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Vince

[Khas 12,158]

Considering that it was said that a leaky hypermatter valve is enough to completely vaporize an ISD, I think that the Empire might be just as, if not more, stupid than the Federation when it comes to reactors.

[scvn2812 504]

Volatility is neither necessary for a powerful reactor nor necessarily a sign of stupidity. If you shoot a nuclear reactor with enough force to breach the core, the result is not a tremendous explosion that consumes the entire power plant or ship.

 

On the other hand, the only access to space the greatest minds of the world have been able to come up with given our technology and infrastructure is to bolt a payload to a bomb and hope all the million things that have to go right in order for it to go into space instead of going up like a MOAB go right. Every hundred or so times, something goes wrong and you get a massive explosion instead of space flight. Does this mean NASA is stupid or is it the best they can do under the economic, technological and political limitations they are working under?

[scvn2812 504]

With regards to the asteroid, how large is large? After all, one gun and not even one of the largest one the ISD, made short work of some the size of houses. Sustained fire should be able to break up larger asteroids considering they have dozens at least of the largest guns.

 

And Slave I lit up quite a few like the fourth of July and outright demolished some smaller asteroids with its guns. The mines bisected asteroids far larger than Slave I or Obi Wan's fighter.

 

Also the no shields thing with Ties is verifiably false in A New Hope at least. That has been debunked years ago yet it will not die in the EU because no one writing these book does their homework, they just repeat what they're told.

 

So how exactly does this work anyway, trying to use one source of equal canon standing to overrule another? The logical thing in my mind would be to try to reconcile as many sources as possible (the route Saxton takes on his site) or discard the EU entirely. (Brian's solution)

 

Yet you are cherry picking your canon to get the results you prefer in exactly the same way you accuse others of doing, the only difference being the end result. Considering your comments on the EU in bold text at the top of every page, does it not strike you as just a bit silly to be invoking the EU, which you take every opportunity to criticize for its absurdities and lack of quality control, to get the outcome you prefer?

Edited December 26, 2012 by scvn2812

[Khas 12,158]

I never said all of the EU was bad. Some of it is quite good. It's just that most of it is bad. Especially "Legacy of the Force". *shudders*

 

It's like diving through piles of pig dung to find a three-pound, flawless diamond. What's good is REALLY good, but the majority is still crap.

[Khas 12,158]

With regards to the asteroid, how large is large? After all, one gun and not even one of the largest one the ISD, made short work of some the size of houses. Sustained fire should be able to break up larger asteroids considering they have dozens at least of the largest guns.

 

And Slave I lit up quite a few like the fourth of July and outright demolished some smaller asteroids with its guns. The mines bisected asteroids far larger than Slave I or Obi Wan's fighter.

 

Also the no shields thing with Ties is verifiably false in A New Hope at least. That has been debunked years ago yet it will not die in the EU because no one writing these book does their homework, they just repeat what they're told.

 

So how exactly does this work anyway, trying to use one source of equal canon standing to overrule another? The logical thing in my mind would be to try to reconcile as many sources as possible (the route Saxton takes on his site) or discard the EU entirely. (Brian's solution)

 

Yet you are cherry picking your canon to get the results you prefer in exactly the same way you accuse others of doing, the only difference being the end result. Considering your comments on the EU in bold text at the top of every page, does it not strike you as just a bit silly to be invoking the EU, which you take every opportunity to criticize for its absurdities and lack of quality control, to get the outcome you prefer?

 

Where are TIEs mentioned as having shields? Every source says that they're unshielded.

 

And what asteroids does Slave I turn into fireworks? True, the Seismic Charges bisected quite a few asteroids, but that doesn't change the fact that no asteroids were caught in Slave I's blaster beams.

[Khas 12,158]

Volatility is neither necessary for a powerful reactor nor necessarily a sign of stupidity. If you shoot a nuclear reactor with enough force to breach the core, the result is not a tremendous explosion that consumes the entire power plant or ship.

 

On the other hand, the only access to space the greatest minds of the world have been able to come up with given our technology and infrastructure is to bolt a payload to a bomb and hope all the million things that have to go right in order for it to go into space instead of going up like a MOAB go right. Every hundred or so times, something goes wrong and you get a massive explosion instead of space flight. Does this mean NASA is stupid or is it the best they can do under the economic, technological and political limitations they are working under?

 

No, it was just a counter to RayCav's statement.

[scvn2812 504]

Khas, watch Brian's shield video or look up TIEs on Technical Commentaries, there are repeated instances of exploding bolts from the Falcon's guns detonating between the wings of the TIEs in much the same way as there were close but off the hull detonations from TIE lasers on the Falcon.

The Slave I swatting asteroids is gone through frame by frame in the first or second ICS video.

[scvn2812 504]

You also didn't answer my question directly. How do you justify using one EU source against another if all are equally canon yet as you say, it's inconsistent.

 

How is your cherry picking from the EU to explain away higher numbers than you find pleasing more justified than Wong or Saxton cherry picking to interpret the films in their way?

[Khas 12,158]

First, it's not just one book out of many. I hope to pull stuff from all the EU works I have.

 

Second, I'm a counter-cherrypicker. I cherrypick, I admit, but only if someone is cherrypicking first. If someone cherrypicks high-ends for one thing, and low-ends for the other, I'll look for the low ends of the franchise they're high-ending, or the high-ends of a series they're low-ending. Makes people see the full picture, rather than a half-truth.

[scvn2812 504]

And what unique ground do you think you can tread seeing as it is all supposedly equally canon (and if you ask a movies only fan or George Lucas, equally BS)?

 

It also seems like a bit of a Quixotic quest if most of your audience dismisses the relevance of EU based arguments in favor of starting with the movies and maybe thinking about reconciling the EU with what's on screen rather than accepting EU interpretations of what is on screen as their starting point. If they can even be bothered to give much consideration to content that the series creator feels free to overwrite as he pleases on a good day and outright rejects as part of his story on a bad day.

 

Not to mention that individual authors feel free to go to great lengths to imposed their own visions rather than trying to harmonize their work with the past. I'm sure even Saxton was conscious that he was imposing a harder scifi veneer over Star Wars than many authors had before but he had the opportunity to put a more science based interpretation on his corner and he took it. Anyone who had the opportunity to participate in their favorite fandom would no doubt try to re imagine it in the way they preferred, whether it was skewed more towards weaving in more real world science or invoking their favorite science fantasy tropes or trying to be scientific and getting it wrong.

 

Trying to weave in more science I can respect, throwing in magic crystals and transmuting part of a planet to antimatter (which in the real world takes ridiculous amounts of energy for amounts smaller than a speck of dust) seems like a very transparent attempt to retcon something you don't care for rather than trying to understand where any of those conclusions came from. It's a pity in many ways ICS wasn't accompanied by one of those The Science of books to explain where the numbers came from. Although the labyrinthine EU material surrounding the Death Star, the many game plots and books, probably tied the authors' hands to a degree.

 

I mean seriously, who honestly thinks that if you asked Lucas how Alderaan was destroyed he would reply that it was done with a beam that turns part of the planet into antimatter then kicks it into hyperspace? Or would he say: with a really big, really powerful laser. Same with the asteroid fields, would he tell you that they are comets or big rocks? Or that no, he didn't mean to imply Dooku's ship could make lunar orbit before Yoda could even catch his breath.

[Khas 12,158]

Those magic crystals weren't in "Death Star".

 

And have you ever considered what the effects of friction would be if that acceleration were true? It would superheat the air and create an explosion that would have leveled the area. Or maybe we should assume that planetary rotations take only a few minutes because we see segues from day to night.

 

Or, hell, we could go down the Vader999 route and say that the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive provides instantaneous travel anywhere, because Vader said "they could be on the other side of the galaxy", when the Falcon jumped to hyperspace near the end of ESB.

[Khas 12,158]

Not to mention Lucas sometimes digs into the EU, and sometimes discards it. Like he's trolling us. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

On another note, I'm expecting RayCav to come in and say either "Oh Haha, wow, you guys need to get laid!" or something more along the lines of "Buttsex. That is all".

[scvn2812 504]

Those magic crystals weren't in "Death Star".

 

And have you ever considered what the effects of friction would be if that acceleration were true? It would superheat the air and create an explosion that would have leveled the area. Or maybe we should assume that planetary rotations take only a few minutes because we see segues from day to night.

 

If the Falcon were merely as capable as the space shuttle at making orbit instead of many times faster and she relied only on conventional drives, she should have roasted anyone and everyone in the docking bays in A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back. Instead, she takes off without even a strong breeze. Does this defy physics as we know? Definitely. Is that a reason to assume that the act of rocketing out of the atmosphere doesn't still have the same energy cost? If so, then how do we even begin to understand what happened and what it might imply for the rest of their technology base? The second we start invoking magic free energy explanations for things, we might as well call it a day and declare debating useless because we might as well be debating Gandalf versus Dumbledore for all the ability we have to understand what they are really capable of. Except that we debate them with the same premise: we measure their feats and quantify them where we can even though we don't understand how they did it. The how is ultimately irrelevant, that they did it is the important part. The movies give us no reason to assume that while their method of propulsion clearly breaks physics to a degree, that they are not still bound by other aspects of it. You can't arbitrarily decide they break more rules than they explicitly break.

 

As far as the accelerations out of atmosphere, you'd have a point if not for the fact that we see Obi Wan rocket out of an atmosphere and cross lunar orbit in the time it takes to have a casual conversation. The Rebel fighters cross from lunar orbit, circumnavigate a planet and then destroy the Death Star in under 15 minutes. You cannot invoke a micro-jump here because then you'd have to explain why the Death Star couldn't do the same to clear its line of sight of Yavin IV. That the Death Star couldn't just arrive above the plane of the ecliptic with a clear line of fire to Yavin IV immediately rather than spending 15 minutes slogging it on STL drives while the Rebels can be attempting to escape tells us that the mechanics of hyperdrive are a bit more complex than "chart course, push button, arrive!"

 

Or, hell, we could go down the Vader999 route and say that the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive provides instantaneous travel anywhere, because Vader said "they could be on the other side of the galaxy", when the Falcon jumped to hyperspace near the end of ESB.

 

Instantaneous, clearly not, but fast nonetheless. Every use of FTL in the movies strongly imply same day travel from the core to the outer rim. No one ever changes clothes and in the case of the transit from Tattooine to Alderaan, everyone was exactly where we left them in the last scene when they arrive.

 

"This day has seen the end of Kenobi and soon it will see the end of the Rebellion." - Vader, there's no hint as to where in the galaxy Yavin is from Alderaan yet where ever it is, it took less than a day. How long do you think Anakin was laying there on Mustafar with burns I'm not even sure there's a degree for with only the force and sheer will to keep him from succumbing to his wounds, heat and dehydration?

 

You keep dodging the issue of justifying your use of parts of the EU to overwrite the parts you don't like.

 

So what's your method for deciding what EU source is legit and what is not? If its all equally canon, how do you justify saying that the Essential Guide to Weapons and Warfare is a more valid source than Incredible Cross Sections or Into the Worlds of the Original Trilogy? What is your criteria for deciding that "Death Star" or Essential Guides rank higher than Into the Worlds of the Original Trilogy's presentation of the Death Star or its comments about the power output of Executor? What makes the ranges of hundreds of kilometers for turbolasers as quoted in that guide you like to invoke more valid than Lusankya and other heavy warships bombarding a Yuuzhan Vong battle fleet from several orbits away? Or your interpretation of Jacen firing on Kashyyk as struggling to even start a forest fire over Lusankya killing every Vong soldier on a planet in 4 minutes? (Been doing a bit of Wookiepedia research today.)

[Khas 12,158]

So I don't have the whole EU on me. I never plan to, seeing as A: There are WAY too many things to dig through, B: A lot of it's crap, and C: Digging through and picking what he likes while trashing what he doesn't seems to be Lucas' policy with the EU, not to mention Leland Chee said that fans get to pick and choose their own canon.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#Canon_in_the_Holocron_continuity_database

 

Scroll down to the bottom of that section.

[scvn2812 504]

Still not seeing a direct answer to what in your mind makes one equally canon in the eyes of Lucasarts source more or less valid than another for your purpose.

 

You may dislike his conclusions but if you took the time, it wouldn't take long for you to become familiar with Brian's criteria for including something in analysis. Brian has one whole video dedicated to his methods and sources and repeats the rules he has laid down for his analysis in practically every video. They're out there very transparently so that viewers of the videos or readers of his posts know what is in and out of bounds.

 

So what are your rules, what's your criteria for weighting one source against another for public comment and criticism? What makes one cherry suitable for picking and another rotten?

[Khas 12,158]

Weren't you listening a while ago when I explained that my computer won't let me run Brian's videos? Or maybe you were jumping too busy jumping to conclusions about why I didn't watch it?

 

As for criteria, it all depends on whether or not it fits in with higher canon, if we see anything like it. If it doesn't flat out contradict anything, I'll let it in. If there is a contradiction, out it goes.

 

And yes, Chee actually made that statement about canon ultimately being up to the fans.

[Vince 520]

As for criteria, it all depends on whether or not it fits in with higher canon, if we see anything like it. If it doesn't flat out contradict anything, I'll let it in. If there is a contradiction, out it goes.

Brians videos are all about the "higher canon", and Curtis Saxton looked for benchmarks from the films, and seemingly wenth with EU examples which best fit with the higher canon. Such as ISD's being capable of melting upper planetary crusts in a matter of hours. Other examples may suggest lower firepower than such feats would imply, but at the same time end up orders of magnitude below what the movie accelerations tell us about power generation.

[scvn2812 504]

Weren't you listening a while ago when I explained that my computer won't let me run Brian's videos? Or maybe you were jumping too busy jumping to conclusions about why I didn't watch it?

 

As for criteria, it all depends on whether or not it fits in with higher canon, if we see anything like it. If it doesn't flat out contradict anything, I'll let it in. If there is a contradiction, out it goes.

 

And yes, Chee actually made that statement about canon ultimately being up to the fans.

 

1. I didn't accuse you of not bothering to watch them this time, I cited Brian as an example of someone putting out their criteria for what to include and what not to include in a clear statement of intent.

 

2. Nearly everything is compatible with higher canon with enough hand waving. I dislike the antimatter conversion + chucking planetary mass into hyperspace theory on the grounds that its a transparent attempt to water down the energy requirements of this event (that fails due to actually requiring MORE not less energy to pull off due to the enormous energy cost of making antimatter) but were I of a mind to consider the EU a reasonable source for debate, I'd be forced to concede that I cannot find a direct contradiction in the films and it is therefore of equal footing to the idea of the Death Star being a giant laser cannon rather than some sort of quantum hyperspace voodoo Rube Goldberg machine.

 

3. I didn't question the authenticity of Chee's quote.

[Tyralak 12,068]

You also didn't answer my question directly. How do you justify using one EU source against another if all are equally canon yet as you say, it's inconsistent.

 

How is your cherry picking from the EU to explain away higher numbers than you find pleasing more justified than Wong or Saxton cherry picking to interpret the films in their way?

 

I think that's kind of the point of the whole thing. What Khas is demonstrating, is this; Once you start using the EU as a source, you open a Pandora's box. You either use all of it and go certifiably insane trying to reconcile all the inconsistencies, or you go the intellectually dishonest route, picking and choosing the ones that suit your argument. SDN, for instance, is well known for choosing the latter option. When it comes to SW, I'm a movies/TCW only guy. The EU is entertaining, but to me it's more or less officially licensed fan fiction. The numbers in the ICS seem to be able to be reconciled with the films, so I don't have a problem with the firepower and power generation figures in it.

[Captain Seafort 17]

you go the intellectually dishonest route, picking and choosing the ones that suit your argument. SDN, for instance, is well known for choosing the latter option.

 

The numbers in the ICS seem to be able to be reconciled with the films, so I don't have a problem with the firepower and power generation figures in it.

 

These two statements sound remarkably similar to me, and the best way to go - pick and choose the technical bits that are reconcilable with the films (and basic maths), and treat the rest as a good read.

[Tyralak 12,068]

These two statements sound remarkably similar to me, and the best way to go - pick and choose the technical bits that are reconcilable with the films (and basic maths), and treat the rest as a good read.

 

Sort of but not quite. I agree with the firepower and power generation figures but I disagree with other conclusions Curtis has. For instance, he is convinced that the domes on the bridge of an isd are strictly sensor domes and not shield generators. I disagree, the films and other technical manuals are pretty clear that those are shield generators which also perform other functions.

[Khas 12,158]

And the weapons ranges. Can't forget the weapons ranges.

[Vince 520]

"If it didn't work - well, the hypermatter reactor was capable of generating an energy burst equivalent to the total weekly output of several main-sequence stars; if anything went wonky, it wasn't likely he'd be around long enough to notice."

SW:Death Star also suggests yields consistent with pure DET theory e38J, despite any technobabble used.

Some interesting technical considerations from the films; the e38j required to mass-scatter the world with so much greater energy than is required to destroy it, yet there were visible fragments. It probably should have white-flashed out of existence, rather than being accelerated toward relativistic speeds in all direction. The minimal energy required to mass-scatter a world is greater than that required to vaporize one. Secondly of course we have that planar explosion. These are quite difficult to explain with science, and maybe the hypermatter conversion beamer hand waves both of these. But if hypermatter requires more energy to create than would a DET beam to mass scatter a world, it would still be a non-issue with concern toward power generation. Secondly, the same source that provides the technobbale which could be accountable for laying rest to two issues in the film, is also the one which confirms power generation extrapolated assuming DET from the films themselves.

Lastly if the DS beam is indeed mass-less like its turbolaser cousins, then wouldn't it require stupid-high energy to shunt the shielded [intact planet] backward like it did? Like with the droids/troopers. That is KE alone, prior to any technobabble antimatter conversion/raw firepower energy requirements. Its also indication of how strong the planetary shields were at Alderaan.