Relation between Industrial Capacity and Volume

[Who is like God arbour]

If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships?

What's the use in thinking about that? It's canon, you can't exactly override it.

Yes that's the point. They don't need shipyards to build a 160km long starship so why would they need one for a 1.6km one?

Have you read this:

• • Maybe they don't need yards for the Death Star, because it is so big, that it can support itself, so big, that all industrial and other support facilities (factories, habitations for the building crew etc.), that are necessary on location, could be placed inside it.
    
    That wouldn't be possible for a substantially smaller ship. These facilities would be placed around the ship (or on other bases or on planets) and compose at large that, what we would call a yard, respectively a yard complex.
    
    Insofar, the building of the Death Star could be more like the building of an oil drilling platform, which core is built ashore and then brought to its final position, where it is completed, than the building of a ship in a yard.

Fact is, that they use yards, like the Kuat, Bilbringi, Sluis Van, and Fondor shipyards, to build their ships. Why would the use them, if they don't need them? I have provided an, as I think, plausible reason. You have failed to show, why you think, that this reason isn't pausible and you still think, that they don't need yards to build 1,6 km long ships.

2. Some fifty million cars are produced annually worldwide, according to some quick googling. By volume, an aircraft carrier is the equivalent of about 153,500 cars, give or take. (32,525,000 cu. ft. for the carrier, as referenced somewhere, and about six cubic meters for what we'll call an average car.)

By those figures, the world could build 325 aircraft carriers per year. And that doesn't even count tanks and planes and so on that could also go into the "industrial capacity" volumetric budget, or the simple economies of scale that would be involved in constructing aircraft carriers by the dozen.

But ignored are the simple details of raw materials and refinement thereof. Are 153,500 cars and an aircraft carrier equivalent by that standard? I rather doubt it.

Except your analogy is completely reversed. In our case we are using Death Star to get the rough number of ISDs. This is analogous of taking aircraft carriers production rate and trying to derive the number of cars built. Obviously such an attempt can only result in underestimation of cars.

Correct. I have noticed this too, but this flaw is irrelevant for this discussion.

3. An aircraft carrier is crewed by some 5700 men (3200 for the ship, 2500 for the air wing). 153,000 cars require no less than 153,000 people. We never get numbers for the Death Star crew as far as I know, or even for an ISD crew, but it would be obvious that replication of roles would be profound if smaller ships were built instead.

Again your analogy is reversed. We are using huge object to determine the number of smaller while you are using the number of smaller objects (cars) to determine the number of larger (carrier).While your case results in overestimation of larger objects our case will result in underestimation of smaller ones (ISDs).

No, in this case, the analogy is appropriate. Even Wookieepedia confirms this in reference to Star Wars: Behind the Magic:

The Death Star II crew consist of

• Crew (485'560)
• Gunners (152'275)
• Troops (1'295'950)
• Infantry (127'570)
• Technical personnel (75'860)
• Pilots (334,432),

together 2'471'647 people.

One single Imperial Class Star Destroyer has a crew, consisting of

• Officers (4'520)
• Infantry (9'700)
• Enlisted (32'565)
• Gunners (275),

together 36'810 persons.

25'000 ISD's would have a crew of 92'025'000 persons, circa 372 times as many people. And 25'000 ISD's together don't have approximate the same volume as the Death Star II.

I know, that these numbers aren't confirmed through the movies. But, I think, you get the underlying idea.

4. Sure, there's still the matter of economies of scale, though. Mass production of a single item should, as a rule of thumb, always trump the cost of a one-off big item. This is even true in the case of complex mass-produced items.

But the sheer size of the Death Star argues for the idea that it makes it own economies of scale, in a sense. Probably there were easily thousands of kilometers worth of identical corridors, or even hundreds of identical interior framing areas, corridors, and rooms. Vast areas the size of a Galaxy Class ship could thus be mass-produced like modular housing, and they wouldn't have warp reactors or nacelles or even external hull . . . it would just be rooms and corridors. Comparatively, that's stupidly easy.

How does this make Death Star easier to construct? Millions of ISD scale ships would also have millions of identical corridors, rooms, reactors, turbolasers etc. etc. which could also be mass produced.

Because the ratio between mass producable standard items, like bulkheads, butt plates, conduits etc., would be lower in a small ship than in a huge ship. Look, for example, at the volume relation between an ISD and its reactor and the Death Star and its reactor.
And with modern CAD-CAM robots, the fact, that the Death Star is a single-unit production, is especially for such bulkheads and butt plates nearly irrelevant.

Secondly would those millions of ISD reactors be more or less expensive than a single Death Star reactor? Could million ISD reactors blow up Alderaan like a firecracker? Could million ISD level hyperdrives move a 160km wide spherical ship?

You can't compare the power output of a reactor with its cost of production.
But you could for example compare the cost of production of the very small reactor of a nuclear-powered air carrier or submarine with the huge reactor of an nuclear power plant. Even if you multiple the number for the nuclear power plant and reduce the number for the small reactors of nuclear-powered air carriers or submarines, you will arrive at the conclusion that million small reactors of nuclear-powered air carriers or submarines together have higher cost of production than a single, huge reactor.

Similarly, the Death Star would not need the same replication of support facilities. There is no need for numerous shipyards, waystations, or thousands upon thousands of repair drydocks. The thing is virtually its own economy.

What is your evidence that Death Star would not need the same effort to support as ISDs? How can you need complex shipyards to service a 1.6km ships but not for a 160km one?

This question was already answered. Please don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections.

The tough part would be the production and assembly of the framework and the superlaser, but as seen for DS1 the framework was largely complete by the end of RotS, and even the superlaser would be mostly composed of identical parts.

Assuming that most of the job on DS1 was really completed at the end of RotS what does that say about the Imperial economy?

2046 hasn't said, the most of the job but the tough part. Please take note, that that are two different meanings. All beginnings are difficult. But difficult doesn't mean expensive and surly not the most of the job. It's only the part, you have to finish, before you can start with the real work. And that is the same with the framework, which was largely completed by the end of RotS. But the real work would beginn only after the framework is finished.

The Empire probably has 100,000 major worlds, compared to 100-150 for the Federation. Even if Federation technology allows an output ten times greater than that for Imperial worlds, it's still a 100-to-1 in favor of the Empire. The fact that they wasted their time building Death Stars instead of making uberfleets is not the Federation's problem by any means.

How can you declare something for which you provided not a shred of evidence a "fact"? Do you forget that DS1 was built secretly as was DS2? That certainly doesn't imply that entire Imperial military industrial capacity was "wasted" on Death Stars. The Empire has million worlds and who knows how many "uncharted settlements" so the fact that we don't see millions of ships lumped in one place is hardly a surprise.

How can you declare something for which you provided not a shred of evidence a "fact"?
And 2046 hasn't implied, that the entire Imperial military industrial capacity was "wasted" on Death Stars. He has only said, that "they wasted their time building Death Stars instead of making uberfleets." And that is correct.
How many Star Destroyers could they have build instead of the Death Star?
And, if the Empire would have, as you say, million worlds and who knows how many "uncharted settlements", what use would have one or two Death Stars?

Many cite ROTJ as an example but they neglect that this was a trap for a group of insurgents.

But, as I have said already too, the Emperial task force at Endor, as well as the Emperial task force at Hoth, was to small to prevent, that the rebels could have escaped. What is this for a trap, in which one let its prey escape? Please adress this objection!!!
If the Emperial Fleet would, as you say, consist of millions of ships, and the one and only enemy, they have at this time, the alliance, is known to be at one place and not distributed through the whole Empire, why would the Empire don't send more ships? Even thousand capital ships wouldn't make a dent in the Emperial Fleet, if it would be so large, as you say.

Not to mention that no one actually bothered to provide evidence as to how many ships were present in the battle.

A quote from ROTJ novel:

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision.

This proves that the entire fleet extended beyond the visual range thus you have absolutely no evidence as to how many ships was there although I often hear 40 Imperial ships or so, based on the fact that we see no more than that in a single scene. But the quote above discredits any such reasoning.

We could see in chapter 30 of the movie the whole fleet of the Alliance, as they have jumped to hyperspeed. That allone would be enough to contradict your quote from the ROTJ novel. And we could see the battle at Endor out of the windows from the chamber of the Emperor.
Maybe you want to bother to provide evidence, that there were more ships, than commonly assumed?

[Who is like God arbour]

What, raw materials?

No, although it has to do something with raw materials - or at least materials which can be worked on only very difficult.

[Who is like God arbour]

And maybe you, Kane Starkiller, could adress my other objections:

The Empire was also broken down

As I have already said, if the Empire had have such ridiculously many ships, in the Battle of Endor would have been destroyed only an infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet.
Russia has decided to demobilise its fleet - but not the Empire.
Where are all the other ships of the Emperial Fleet? Such an Imperial StarDestroyer don't get lost in nirvana - and a fortiori not thousands of them.

We have no idea how the death of Emperor effected the Empire

Correct, we - or at least I - have no idea.
But we know, that the Emperial Navy had have a strict order and command chain. Even if the Emperor, the head of this order and command chain, has died, it would persist.

• For example, the forces of the USA wouldn't come apart, only because the president, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, would die.
• Another example, when Stalin has died, the Red Army has not come appart, although Stalin was power-addicted and has created a cult of personality, not unlike the Emporer in Star Wars.

The point is very simple: you cannot use the number of ships AFTER the collapse of a state to contradict the number of ships it had BEFORE the collapse.

If there is no noteworthy difference between the industrial capacity before an event and after the event, I can very well compare both conditions. And the death of an Emperor is not the collapse of the Empire. As I have said already, only an infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet would have been destroyed at Endor, if it would really consist of thousands or even millions of ships. Where are the rest of the remainder of the Emperial Navy and why would the death of the Emperor affect the industrial capacity in a noteworthy extent?

Especially since the very EU sources you are trying to use clearly mention 25,000 ISDs ALONE at the height of the Empire.

Please don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections. The question is, how far the Thrawn trilogy is superseded by higher or equal canon, which imply other Fleet strengths?

• For example, why would the Emperial task force at Endor consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the fleet of the rebellion to escape. Admiral Ackbar has already started to order the withdrawal. He has seen the Emperial task force but, as it seems, has thought, that a withdrawal was possible nevertheless.
• Another example: why would the Emperial task force at Hoth consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the rebels to escape from Hoth.

The movies haven't left the impression of huge fleets, consisting of millions of ships. Only some exaggeratory EU novels have created such impression. But someone, who hasn't read any EU novels - like me - can't recognize the Star Wars Universe from the movies in the tales, which are told about some of these EU novels. They describe in my opinion another universe, which have only superficial relations to the universe, decribed by the movies. In my understanding of canon, that disqualified such EU novels as part of the original universe.
Please don't misapprehend me. I have nothing against continuative novels as long as they respect the spirit of the original. It's possible to explain every bollocks and every change. But that's not, what a continuative novel is supposed to do. If I want to read about Star Wars, I expect a story, in which I can recognize the Star Wars, I know.

If you ignore an objection, I have to assume, that you concede this point.

You don't have to argue an objection. It would be enough to write, that you think, that my objection is irrelevant for the discussion or that you think, it is wrong but irrelevant and that's why you won't further adress it.

But don't simple ignore it. In a debate as well as in trial, if one doesn't object at once, the possibility to do it later is usually forfeited.

[Kane Starkiller]

Well sure, but it's not like we can start making many claims off of that. The fact that they built the Death Stars proves only that they have the industrial capacity to do so. Sure, we can fantasize about them building other things, but we don't have enough detail to start making claims of that nature.

Are you saying that Empire has the ability to build millions of ISDs within a few decades but decided not to do so?

So? The only real weakness to the analogy is that I'm referring to ground-based versus seaside construction . . . I could make the analogy even worse by comparing carrier build rates to ISS construction.

Which would be another inadequate analogy since every nut and bolt must be launched into space and ISS parts are not mass produced which makes the price skyrocket.

But the fact that it's from small to big versus big to small is wholly irrelevant. If you wish to view that as another flaw in volumetric analyses of industrial capacity, though, you're free to do so.

Building one big object is always more difficult than building smaller of a similar type. We can build hundreds of 100m tall buildings but not even one that is 1km long.

Why would it be an underestimate? We could build huge metal warships circa 1905 . . . that doesn't mean auto production would be underestimated by volume.

Of course it would. What is the tonnaage of aircraft carriers yearly production? What will happen if you try to use that number to derive the tonnage of yearly produced cars? An underestimation.

Yes, but reactors and such would presumably be the more complex items of an ISD. Simply making a room or a corridor, even if it has piping, is going to be far easier by comparison.

So? ISDs will have millions of reactors and Death Star will have one huge 10km reactor. I don't see how this makes things any easier for the Death Star. ISD reactors will become much cheaper as the production drags along while there is only one Death Star type reactor and it's huge and it has capabilities no ISD reactor or a group of reactor is close to replicating. So really how can this possibly go in Death Star's favor?

Because instead of a million individual docks or a thousand different base facilities, you're basically in one.

So instead of being able to maintain shipyards all over the galaxy and having each world take care of it's own shipyard you have to lug a huge amount of equipement and resources to one place. How exactly is this easier?

Did you see a spacedock for it?

But hey, fine, if you don't want the Death Star to be self-supporting at all then whatever.

Did you see a spacedock for an ISD? Why do you keep claiming that ISDs will require special complex shipyards when no such evidence exists?

And yet the defenses of Mustafar nearly bankrupted them.

And those defenses entailed what exactly?

The problem that is being explained to you is that it is too simple.

Except it isn't. Not for obtaining a rough order of magnitude estimate.

What, that they didn't have uberfleets? We know they didn't. Where did you get the idea that they did?

I got mine from the fact that they can build Death Star and the fact that they had millions of systems to control and patrol.

Please provide evidence for the millions of ISDs you seem to ponder, then.

1. The Empire needs million ISDs to patrol and control it's space
2. The Empire can build millions of ISDs based on their construction of Death Star

At Endor, your own folks have counted them.

My own folks? Who? What was the conclusion exactly.

So they're more spread out in the novel. So what?

So you can't see them. So you have no idea how many ships they had.



Now as for "Who is like God arbour " and his points:
1. ISDs are built in shipyards
How does this help your argument? Empire managed to build a Death Star WITHOUT any supporting shipyard on an arbitrary position. Already preexisitng shipyards will only make ISDs even easier to construct.

2. Not enough manpower
Those crewmember estimate is completely inadequate since at those numbers Death Star's would be completely vacant.
Assuming one deck is 5m tall Death Star has 32,000 decks with and average surface of about 10^10m2. Assuming there is one crewmember every 100 meters that translates into 1/31415m-2 density. For the Death Star that is 10 billion crewmembers. Looking at the films Death Stars are far more crowded than that with crew filling the corridors wherever our heroes go.
Not to mention that an Empire of quadrillions will not have a problem of crewing it's ships.

3. Number of imperial worlds
Number of million Imperial worlds being million is given in ANH novels so that is a FACT my friend.

4. Empire "wasted" their time on building Death Stars
You provided zero evidence that this is the case.

But, as I have said already too, the Emperial task force at Endor, as well as the Emperial task force at Hoth, was to small to prevent, that the rebels could have escaped. What is this for a trap, in which one let its prey escape? Please adress this objection!!!

This is no objection. If a criminal escapes a group of 5 squad cars does that mean the police doesn't have any more? What planet do you live on. Have you provided any evidence as to how many ships there were on Endor? Of course not.

If the Emperial Fleet would, as you say, consist of millions of ships, and the one and only enemy, they have at this time, the alliance, is known to be at one place and not distributed through the whole Empire, why would the Empire don't send more ships? Even thousand capital ships wouldn't make a dent in the Emperial Fleet, if it would be so large, as you say.

Because the Rebel alliance was obviously tracking the Imperial fleet and if it started to converge on one point they would recognize the trap. And again how do you know how many ships were present in the Endor battle?

We could see in chapter 30 of the movie the whole fleet of the Alliance, as they have jumped to hyperspeed. That allone would be enough to contradict your quote from the ROTJ novel. And we could see the battle at Endor out of the windows from the chamber of the Emperor.
Maybe you want to bother to provide evidence, that there were more ships, than commonly assumed?

How can it contradict the novel which says that more ships extend BEYOND HUMAN VISION? Therefore we COULDN'T see it all in the films.

Correct, we - or at least I - have no idea.
But we know, that the Emperial Navy had have a strict order and command chain. Even if the Emperor, the head of this order and command chain, has died, it would persist.

* For example, the forces of the USA wouldn't come apart, only because the president, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, would die.
* Another example, when Stalin has died, the Red Army has not come appart, although Stalin was power-addicted and has created a cult of personality, not unlike the Emporer in Star Wars.

A strict chain of command? How come that Vader was subservient to Grand Moff Tarkin and yet clearly above Grand Moff Jerjerrod? We are clearly talking about Emperor positioning his trusted men in positions of power and all that could easily crumble once he is dead.
As you sid: You have no idea. So how can you claim any kind of contradictions with former fleet numbers if you don't know what happened?

If there is no noteworthy difference between the industrial capacity before an event and after the event, I can very well compare both conditions. And the death of an Emperor is not the collapse of the Empire. As I have said already, only an infinitesimal part of the Emperial Fleet would have been destroyed at Endor, if it would really consist of thousands or even millions of ships. Where are the rest of the remainder of the Emperial Navy and why would the death of the Emperor affect the industrial capacity in a noteworthy extent?

The Empire DID collapse whether you want to admit it or not.

Please don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections. The question is, how far the Thrawn trilogy is superseded by higher or equal canon, which imply other Fleet strengths?

* For example, why would the Emperial task force at Endor consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the fleet of the rebellion to escape. Admiral Ackbar has already started to order the withdrawal. He has seen the Emperial task force but, as it seems, has thought, that a withdrawal was possible nevertheless.
* Another example: why would the Emperial task force at Hoth consist of so few ships, if the Emperial Fleet could have assigned thousands of ships without problems, if there would really be so many of them? That wasn't even enough ships, to prevent the rebels to escape from Hoth.

The movies haven't left the impression of huge fleets, consisting of millions of ships. Only some exaggeratory EU novels have created such impression. But someone, who hasn't read any EU novels - like me - can't recognize the Star Wars Universe from the movies in the tales, which are told about some of these EU novels. They describe in my opinion another universe, which have only superficial relations to the universe, decribed by the movies. In my understanding of canon, that disqualified such EU novels as part of the original universe.
Please don't misapprehend me. I have nothing against continuative novels as long as they respect the spirit of the original. It's possible to explain every bollocks and every change. But that's not, what a continuative novel is supposed to do. If I want to read about Star Wars, I expect a story, in which I can recognize the Star Wars, I know.

How many ships were there on Endor? It streched beyond human vision remember? Mon Mothma reports that Imperial fleet is scattered across the galaxy in a vain effort to engage the Rebels. Did that escape your attention?
Imperial fleet at Hoth had the task of capturing a group of Rebels and they brought ships they could spare and thought neccesary. You don't send ALL your police cars for any group of criminals do you?
Secondly your opinion that EU doesn't represent the movie is just that: your opinion.
The movie, even the first one, introduced us to a galaxy spanning civilization that is 25,000 years old can build 160km long ships that can blow up planets. Nothing about million ships contradicts that.

[l33telboi]

Yes that's the point. They don't need shipyards to build a 160km long starship so why would they need one for a 1.6km one?

Because canon says so.

25,000 ISD ALONE.

So what? These seem to be the most common kids of ships in the Imperial Navy and they're also some of the most massive. Whatever mass you would get from smaller ships would likely be a lot lower then that of 25 000 ISD's. Not a few million times more.

US currently has...

I don't care about what the US currently has. Drawing real life comparisons and basing theories on that is all good and dandy, but without canon support it doesn't belong in vs. debating.

You are welcome to provide canon support for your theories any time you wish, before that your speculations are worth just about ziltch.

[Kane Starkiller]

Because canon says so.

When did canon said that they need shipyards for IDSs?

So what? These seem to be the most common kids of ships in the Imperial Navy and they're also some of the most massive. Whatever mass you would get from smaller ships would likely be a lot lower then that of 25 000 ISD's. Not a few million times more.

Evidence please. Seeing as how Acclamator and Venator were in full wartime production. What they all disappeared in 20 years?

I don't care about what the US currently has. Drawing real life comparisons and basing theories on that is all good and dandy, but without canon support it doesn't belong in vs. debating.

You are welcome to provide canon support for your theories any time you wish, before that your speculations are worth just about ziltch.

You can pretend that building 160km long starship doesn't point to a certain industrial capacity all you like. The films are quite clear.

[l33telboi]

When did canon said that they need shipyards for IDSs?

Everytime ship-construction is mentioned there's talk of shipyards.

Evidence please.

ISD's are mentioned in almost every single novel whereas other ship types and models are mentioned far less frequently.

Seeing as how Acclamator and Venator were in full wartime production. What they all disappeared in 20 years?

Considering that there's 0 mention of them during the OT and later eras, yes, they seem to have dissapeared.

You can pretend that building 160km long starship doesn't point to a certain industrial capacity all you like.

Strawman.

The films are quite clear.

And the EU is even clearer.

[Kane Starkiller]

Everytime ship-construction is mentioned there's talk of shipyards.

They have shipyards which make things easier. Prove they NEED them seeing as how they didn't need them for the huge Death Star.

ISD's are mentioned in almost every single novel whereas other ship types and models are mentioned far less frequently.

So what?

Considering that there's 0 mention of them during the OT and later eras, yes, they seem to have dissapeared.

How does this follow?

Strawman.

How?

And the EU is even clearer.

By all means show me an EU source that states the Empire didn't have millions of ships at it's height.

[l33telboi]

They have shipyards which make things easier.

That's exactly the point. They don't build ships outside shipyards becuase it would be massive waste of time and resources.

Prove they NEED them seeing as how they didn't need them for the huge Death Star.

Why would i need to prove this? The burden of proof is on you since you're making the claim that they can do this. I'm sure they could build ships outside shipyards, but obviously this is something so wasteful they don't even consider it during times of war when they need all the ships they can get their hands on as fast as they can.

And as such, the claim about industry falls.

So what?

So all signs point to ISD's being the staple ship of the Empire.

How does this follow?

If there's no mention of these ships even during the course of several books, movies, games (some that even feature pretty much every common ship the GE has) and whatnot while there are mentions of a buttload of other ships, then it would seem Acclamators and Ventaors are either extremely rare or they've been de-comissioned.

How?

I've never claimed the Deathstar wasn't an impressive feat of industry, just that this doesn't seem to apply to ships.

By all means show me an EU source that states the Empire didn't have millions of ships at it's height.

Nope, it's the other way around. You're the one trying to claim they can build millions (or was it billions?) of ISD's per year. And that they probably pumped out all that mass in the form of other ships. Well, you're quite welcome to provide the evidence for it whenever you feel ready.

So far the 25 000 makes this seem extremely silly and the industrial capabilities of the New Republic confirms the sillyness.

You can continue stalling for time and hoping i'll give up by posting your one-liner retorts like "How?" "How does this follow?" and so on. But at the end of the day i doubt you're going to impress anyone without giving something a wee bit more substantial to back up your claim.

[Kane Starkiller]

This is unbelievable. I point out they built a Death Star WITHOUT A SHIPYARD in 20 years whose mass proves their industrial capacity. You retort that since they use shipyards for ISDs to further aid in their construction that that will somehow make ISDs MORE difficult to construct. HOW?
Don't you get it that if they can construct Death Star without a shipyard they'll be able to construct ISDs without a shipyard. And since we are using the Death Star as benchmark than the fact that there are already shipyards for ISDs in place it will only make ISDs EASIER to build than Death Star was.

Secondly you ask me to prove they don't need shipyards to build 1.6km long starships even though we have seen they don't need them for 160km one. What possible reason would there be for them to be capable of building 160km ship from scratch without a shipyard and not be able to build the far smaller?

So all signs point to ISD's being the staple ship of the Empire.

No they only point to ISDs being used at those particular operations described in the book.

If there's no mention of these ships even during the course of several books, movies, games (some that even feature pretty much every common ship the GE has) and whatnot while there are mentions of a buttload of other ships, then it would seem Acclamators and Ventaors are either extremely rare or they've been de-comissioned.

It's a large galaxy. All types of ships don't need to be mentioned all the time for us to assume they are still around.

I've never claimed the Deathstar wasn't an impressive feat of industry, just that this doesn't seem to apply to ships.

How convenient! It doesn't "apply" to the ships!
Either you have the industry or you don't. And Death Star IS A SHIP. You can pretend otherwise all you wish.

Nope, it's the other way around. You're the one trying to claim they can build millions (or was it billions?) of ISD's per year. And that they probably pumped out all that mass in the form of other ships. Well, you're quite welcome to provide the evidence for it whenever you feel ready.

I already did: simple scaling of Death Star. You can pretend that "Death Star production doesn't apply to ships" even though Death Star is a ship all you wish. The evidence is there.

You can continue stalling for time and hoping i'll give up by posting your one-liner retorts like "How?" "How does this follow?" and so on. But at the end of the day i doubt you're going to impress anyone without giving something a wee bit more substantial to back up your claim.

I don't see how one can get more substantial than showing a lumbering 160km starship blowing up planets but hey.

[Mr. Oragahn]

On the other hand, the Death Star II shows that it's almost self sufficient, in terms of support structures.

It's not like it's surrounded by a massive shipyard, or like each kilometer of the Death Star II requires a special infrastructure around them.
It's more like building a house. Of course, a house with probably hundreds of thousands small ships and droids buzzing around.

However, when it comes to fleets, it's like cars. You need infrastructures which even seem way bigger than a single unit the shipyard/factory can churn out.

I already had this very discussion on this board and it didn't lead anywhere so I'm a little reluctant to go into it again but still.
If they can build Death Star without any massive shipyard then why do you think they would need it for ships? What is it about Death Star that somehow makes the shipyard redundant while being required for ships? As Darth Wong and Kuroneko explained the very fact that there are no preexisting shipyards and that Empire could still build this new huge ship in such a short amount of time proves they could build lot of smaller ships even more easily.

That is right, we could think that building ships doesn't require shipyards, Trek-style for example.

However, there's a point to consider. Where are the pieces built? There has to be factories for them. Even if the assembly doesn't require much infrastructure, which I doubt actually, you need massive structures to build the entire line of pieces.

The Death Star doesn't appear to have any supplementary structures around it. However, I talked about the likely existence of many ships and droids buzzing around.
Actually, those ships and droids would be the mobile shipyards. They'll bring already pre-built pieces, and assemble them into the DS' frame. Then move on to another section of the battle station.

Same could be done with ships, but you still require the structures to make those pieces anyway.

We've seen the amount of room it takes to have droid factories. Though we're talking about droids, and not ships, the essentials are the same.

My conclusion would be that the DS projects used mobile construction platforms, which would be wiser for a a project that is not really standardized.
It's better to move your shipyard around the station than build a shipyard bigger than your planned station, and build the station inside.

On the other hand, more traditional building facilities come as immobile construction yards. Especially since we're talking about mass production and standard procedures. You can, in fact, you must have fixed systems.

In the end, until we see the size of the factories used to build DS parts, we can't make any conclusion, but at least, with mobile construction structures, the Death Star's shipyards would only come as a fraction of the total mass of the battle station.
Just as much as shipyards would only come as a small fraction of the total mass of all the standard ships those shipyards have built.

So in the end, I think it's just roughly equal.

[l33telboi]

This is unbelievable. I point out they built a Death Star WITHOUT A SHIPYARD in 20 years whose mass proves their industrial capacity. You retort that since they use shipyards for ISDs to further aid in their construction that that will somehow make ISDs MORE difficult to construct. HOW?

All i said was that Stardestroyers obviously need shipyards building them, since we've never even seen people talking about building the ships outside them. Either that or the efficiency of the construction effort drops so badly they just don't even entertain the idea.

Why? I don't know and i couldn't quite care. But this is canon, you're just going to have to live with it.

Don't you get it that if they can construct Death Star without a shipyard they'll be able to construct ISDs without a shipyard. And since we are using the Death Star as benchmark than the fact that there are already shipyards for ISDs in place it will only make ISDs EASIER to build than Death Star was.

Then no doubt you have something verifying this theory? No? Too bad. Because in the NJO it was said to take a few years to build a Death Star, yet they didn't manage to do better then double their production of captial ships. And here where talking about thousands (or tens of thousands) of ships in service, not millions and not billions.

Secondly you ask me to prove they don't need shipyards to build 1.6km long starships even though we have seen they don't need them for 160km one.

Yes. And since you by now haven't been able to do it. All i can surmise is that you aren't able to.

What possible reason would there be for them to be capable of building 160km ship from scratch without a shipyard and not be able to build the far smaller?

Like i said, i don't know. But this is the way it is.

No they only point to ISDs being used at those particular operations described in the book.

Nope, statistically that's extremely unlikely that they just happen to feature ISD's in every book by mere chance. The far more likely explanation is that they are simply one of the most used ships by the Empire.

It's a large galaxy. All types of ships don't need to be mentioned all the time for us to assume they are still around.

No, but if they were common, they would be mentioned. As it is, they aren't mentioned even once. Logically one would infer that this is because they aren't around anymore. Or that they exist in such small numbers that they aren't worth mentioning.

How convenient! It doesn't "apply" to the ships!
Either you have the industry or you don't. And Death Star IS A SHIP. You can pretend otherwise all you wish.

I don't need to pretend anything. Canon backs me up when i the Deathstar can't be used as a measuring stick for how many ships can be produced.

I already did: simple scaling of Death Star. You can pretend that "Death Star production doesn't apply to ships" even though Death Star is a ship all you wish. The evidence is there.

So all you have is a theory. A theory about how the Death Star can be used to measure ship production. And this theory is stomped on by canonical information.

It's just too damn bad.

I don't see how one can get more substantial than showing a lumbering 160km starship blowing up planets but hey.

Blowing up planets now has something to do with industrial capacity? Come now Kane, you can do better then that.

[Kane Starkiller]

Why do you keep pretending Death Star is not a ship?
Really your argument boils down to: "You can't use the construction of Death Star to derive the number of ships Empire could build."
But since Death Star is a ship complete with hyperdrive and sublight engine your argument is really:
"You can't use the construction of a ship to determine how many ships the Empire could build"

Then you claim that my insistence in doing so is actually "my theory" as opposed to simple engineering principles.

[l33telboi]

Why do you keep pretending Death Star is not a ship?

Where have i done this? Your strawmans are getting more ludicrous by the second.

Really your argument boils down to: "You can't use the construction of Death Star to derive the number of ships Empire could build."

Exactly. And unfortunatly for you, canon backs me up on this, becuase it shows us that it doesn't work this way. If you've got any canon support for your position, then let's hear it. Because so far all you've presented is a theory. And like all theories, it can and should be tested. And i'm afraid this one didn't quite pass the test.

Then you claim that my insistence in doing so is actually "my theory" as opposed to simple engineering principles.

We're talking about a fictional sci-fi verse here. We have no idea how their engineering works or what to expect. That's why we can only use what we've seen done in canon. There could easily be something that makes a Deathstar far easier to create then multiple smaller ships. Perhaps building one reactor is far cheaper then building a billion? We just don't know.

What we do know is that the Death Star construction can't be applied to capital ship construction. This is directly observable from canon.

[Kane Starkiller]

Where have i done this? Your strawmans are getting more ludicrous by the second.

Don't play games. You stated clearly that we cannot compare construction of Death Star with "ships" obviously implying Death Star is not in fact a ship.

Exactly. And unfortunatly for you, canon backs me up on this, becuase it shows us that it doesn't work this way. If you've got any canon support for your position, then let's hear it. Because so far all you've presented is a theory. And like all theories, it can and should be tested. And i'm afraid this one didn't quite pass the test.

Canon does not in fact back you up since you haven't provided a shred of evidence as to what was the number of ships at Endor and you ignored the fact that Mon Mothma EXPLICITLY states that Imperial fleet is spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage them.

We're talking about a fictional sci-fi verse here. We have no idea how their engineering works or what to expect. That's why we can only use what we've seen done in canon. There could easily be something that makes a Deathstar far easier to create then multiple smaller ships. Perhaps building one reactor is far cheaper then building a billion? We just don't know.

What we do know is that the Death Star construction can't be applied to capital ship construction. This is directly observable from canon.

Ah yes it's the "physics escape clause" as Mr. Wong so eloquently put it. How exactly do you expect their engineering to "work" so as to allow them to construct a 160km starship at any arbitrary place in space and keeping it a secret yet be unable to construct a similar volume of much smaller and mundane ships the likes of which were constructed for decades and likely thousands of years before.
You can make up silly excuses and pretend canon "backs you up" without providing a shred of evidence or reasoning all you like. The evidence is there: 160km long starship.