The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[The Dude]

Are we talking about the same Star Wars? The one with anit-gravity, ftl, 3 foot long energy swords, ftl comms and magic?

Seems kind of silly to go "oh no this is totally incompatible with science as we know it" and give everything else a free pass.

[User1462]

Are we talking about the same Star Wars? The one with anit-gravity, ftl, 3 foot long energy swords, ftl comms and magic?

Seems kind of silly to go "oh no this is totally incompatible with science as we know it" and give everything else a free pass.

Ok, just so we're on the same page:
I'm with you, SW is pure sci-fi hokum-- it's like saying that gamma-rays or radioactive spider-bites can give you super-powers... instead of just cancer and a rash.
Warsies, however, claim that SW is all valid science, and so it can beat Star Trek on that basis-- just like Scientologists claim that their cult is based on science, with how they measure Thetan-levels using simple galvanometers, and how Tom Cruise says that organic neurological depression can be cured with vitamins etc.

Here, Khas is claiming that the DS superlaser has a valid scientific basis-- rather than a magic fire-breathing dragon that the brave Sir Luke Cloud-prancer slays with a proton laser-lance and his trusty squeaky French squire Arthur DeTou, using the power of "the Faith--" which you and I know it to be.... but I'm just extending latitude, and saying "even if."

Star Trek tech, meanwhile, is based mostly on sound scientific theory.

[The Dude]

Wait...what? SW has valid science, who claimed that? Cause I've seen the occasional Trekkie say the same thing, when its clear that ST is no better off.

Got a link?

[User1462]

Wait...what? SW has valid science, who claimed that? Got a link?

What, are you serious? That's like asking me if I have directions to a forest, instead of just a bunch of trees.
SDN is entirely based on this claim, what with their calculations and junk-science arguments; obviously you can't calculate magic and make-believe.

Cause I've seen the occasional Trekkie say the same thing, when its clear that ST is no better off.

ST is based on real science, if you can manipulate gravitons by converting strong forces of matter and antimatter to gravitational energy. It's simply beyond our means, not our comprehension; it's only a matter of time before science can do this.
The only real non-science is telepathy and the transporter; and those were studio-conventions to save time and money-- but neither is crucial to the plot; nothing that truth-drugs and shuttles can't handle.
For example, the Vulcan Mind-meld was invented to avoid lenthy interrogation-scenes, while the transporter was invented to save money by replacing expensive shuttlecraft-scenes with a little trick-photography.
However warp-drive, anti-matter, subspace weapons, communications, deflectors and tractors-- that's all hard science once you have the means.

Star Wars, meanwhile, is pure 50's sci-fi mixed with fairy-tales, and even Curtis Saxton has come to his senses and admitted that.

[The Dude]

And I suppose magic weapons that make an enemy disappear are possible as well then?

[User1462]

And I suppose magic weapons that make an enemy disappear are possible as well then?

No, just high-tech devices which convert them to neutrinos and tachyons etc-- it's entirely possible once you can control gravity.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Why yes I did, along with several other people in this thread and others we have done nothing but provide evidence and quotes. You just ignore them, or try to spin that evidence into something it isn't.

Where? The hypermatter reactor would obviously be used for things such as life support, lighting, sensors, electronics, shielding, the superlaser, the huge amount of other weapons, moving the ship, artificial gravity, etc.

When did I say we were dealing with a fusion reactor? Please stop distorting my words or take the time to understand what I wrote and keep it seperate from other people. I'm tying in all sources relevant to the issue at hand. You claim the Death Star novel supports ICS, and yet myself and others have pointed out were within the novel itself as well as other sources, be it hypermatter, fusion, hamsters or what-have-you, the DS reactor is not as powerful as you claim it to be. So yeah, it is powerful, but not as powerful as you want.

"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."

So stop blatantly lying. Your quote:

You claim the Death Star novel supports ICS, and yet myself and others have pointed out were within the novel itself as well as other sources, be it hypermatter, fusion, hamsters or what-have-you, the DS reactor is not as powerful as you claim it to be.

A quote from the novel:


"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."


THE FREAKING QUOTE BLATANTLY STATES THAT THE HYPERMATTER REACTOR IS ON PAR WITH THE WEEKLY OUTPUT OF SEVERAL MAIN SEQUENCE STARS. Why do you keep on thinking that the novel doesn't support it? It outright states it. Your reading comprehension skills do not look good. You claim that the novel does not support it. The novel has a quote blatantly supporting it. Fact.

It is relevant. If you do not need even 1e32 W to power the superlaser, then why have a reactor that is many orders of magnitude more powerful than your main planet-busting weapon? Propulsion? The DS1 maxed out it's velocity while orbiting Yavin at about 100 km/sec on the generous side of things, which gives maybe around 1e25 J, and the thousands of TL bolts, none of which anywhere in the higher canon of the movies, novelizations, and most especially TCW demonstrate the uber-gigatons of firepower Warsies claim don't exist, and therefore would require a fraction of that, leaving a hefty amount of power to be used to charge up the superlaser, which in turn does not require DET at all to shunt most of a planet's mass into hyperspace.

It does not matter why they need the reactor. The fact is that they have it:

"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."

Why is irrelevant.

What, a couple of very small red dwarf stars? Maybe. But not 1e32 J, and certainly not 1e38 J, not even close. As much as you try to claim it high ICS power, the more we'll just keep trotting out that it is not so, and showing the evidence. Tenn is talking in terms of the station going boom and the yield being that high, not for normal operations. End of story.

Do you understand what "main sequence stars" means? Red dwarf stars are not main sequence stars. Nice try though. Well, not really.

Because of what happened to the ISD Battle Lance in the DS novel, and what is described by Tenn as happening when the DS reactor goes boom.

"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."

Concede.

Disproven.

"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."

Again, they do not, and you keep ignoring other people's arguements and the vast amount of evidence that has been either posted or linked to.

And one quote can refute them all:


"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."

They tried to use it for SDs, didn't work:

"The Battle Lance.

His nephew, Hora Graneet, had been a navy spacer on the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Mark II class vessel, which had been selected for a shakedown cruise testing one of the improved prototype hypermatter reactors. Tenn didn't know the specifics of what had happened, and didn't have anything close to the math needed to understand it anyway. He knew that hypermatter existed only in hyperspace, that it was composed of tachyonic particles, and that charged tachyons, when constrained by the lower dimensions of realspace, produced near-limitless energy. How this "null-point energy" had become unstable he didn't know. He only knew it had been powerful enough to turn an ISD-II and its crew of thirty-seven thousand people into floating wisps of ionized gas in a microsecond."

Take a hypermatter reactor too small, and it goes boom.

Are you this bad at reading?

"which had been selected for a shakedown cruise testing of one of the IMPROVED PROTOTYPE hypermatter reactors"

You suppose that, if a new improved prototype jet engine malfunctions, that such an incident means that the USAF doesn't have jet engines? Do you understand what "improved" and "prototype" means?

The fact that there is an "improved" in it shows that there are already hypermatter reactors on star destroyers.

And they're highly unstable the smaller you try to make them, not to mention, every ship prior to a Mark II ISD did not have them, and they are clearly not anywhere near as powerful as you claim.
-Mike

It's a canon fact that hypermatter reactors are also used for star destroyers. The same quote that you used to try to disprove it actually proves it, as anybody who knows what "improved" means would realize.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Star Trek tech, meanwhile, is based mostly on sound scientific theory.

...what? Sorry for the double post, but this is ridiculous. Not only is it an attempt to redirect and derail the the thread, you actually claimed that Star Trek is Scientifically accurate. Granted, Star Wars isn't exactly hard sci fi, but neither is Star Trek. In fact, even the creators of Star Trek realize this and often lampshade treknoblabble. Q even mentions it.

[The Dude]

Star Trek tech, meanwhile, is based mostly on sound scientific theory.

...what? Sorry for the double post, but this is ridiculous. Not only is it an attempt to redirect and derail the the thread, you actually claimed that Star Trek is Scientifically accurate. Granted, Star Wars isn't exactly hard sci fi, but neither is Star Trek. In fact, even the creators of Star Trek realize this and often lampshade treknoblabble. Q even mentions it.

I wish I could remember where I read it (I think might have been Doug Drexler's blog) but theres a quote out there that pretty much said the writers/producers would get themselves backed into a corner plot wise and come to the art/technical staff for a "technobabble" solution.

[Mike DiCenso]

Do you understand what "main sequence stars" means? Red dwarf stars are not main sequence stars. Nice try though. Well, not really.

They aren't? The red dwarf entry for Wikipedia disagrees with you as do other sources, like this one.

So, you like, want to try that again?

"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."

If it didn't work...

Combined with the ANH novelization's quote about the Death Star's chain-reaction explosion of the reactor producing the liberated energies of a "small sun", and the whole thing makes perfect sense my way, not yours.

Are you this bad at reading?

"which had been selected for a shakedown cruise testing of one of the IMPROVED PROTOTYPE hypermatter reactors"

You suppose that, if a new improved prototype jet engine malfunctions, that such an incident means that the USAF doesn't have jet engines? Do you understand what "improved" and "prototype" means?

The fact that there is an "improved" in it shows that there are already hypermatter reactors on star destroyers.

Please, this is dishonest on your part. The fact that it was improved in order to allow star destroyer sized vessels carry hypermatter reactors. What destroyed Battle Lance was a flaw that because they attempted to compress the reactor to that size, it went boom. Whether or not they got around the issue is another matter, but this improvement was not because of prior existing star destroyer hypermatter reactors, just simply that this was the first time one had been made that could supposedly fit on board a ship that size. Take nuclear reactors IRL as a more accurate example. Most of them tend to be used in immobile, land-based reactors of huge size, or on large navy vessels. To get a fission reactor small enough to fit on a jet fighter and power it takes some doing. Most research into that sort of thing got shelved a long time ago due to the issues involved with miniaturizing the power plant as well as the highly radioactive exaust, shielding to prevent radiation sickness with the crew, not to mention what would happen if there was a containment failure.

It's a canon fact that hypermatter reactors are also used for star destroyers. The same quote that you used to try to disprove it actually proves it, as anybody who knows what "improved" means would realize.

That an attempt was made to make a hypermatter reactor that could fit an ISD as opposed to needing a small moon to house it would also constitute "improved" as well. Every other source, such as the RoTS novelization all indicate fusion power as the primary power source for everything from podracers to starships.
-Mike

[Who is like God arbour]

A quote from the novel:


"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."


THE FREAKING QUOTE BLATANTLY STATES THAT THE HYPERMATTER REACTOR IS ON PAR WITH THE WEEKLY OUTPUT OF SEVERAL MAIN SEQUENCE STARS. Why do you keep on thinking that the novel doesn't support it? It outright states it. Your reading comprehension skills do not look good. You claim that the novel does not support it. The novel has a quote blatantly supporting it. Fact.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask that: Are you really that stupid?

THE FREAKING QUOTE BLATANTLY STATES THAT THE HYPERMATTER REACTOR WAS CAPABLE OF GENERATING AN ENERGY BURST EQUIVALENT TO THE TOTAL WEEKLY OUTPUT OF SEVERAL MAIN-SEQUENCE STARS - IF IT DIDN'T WORK.

That is NOT the normal modus operandi. That's what happens if ANYTHING WENT WRONG.

You can compare it with a fission-reactor that went out of control. The in such a case released energy is not the energy the reactor can release under controlled circumstances.

For this debate it is not important how much energy the reactor can release when it explodes. It is only important, how much energy the reactor can release without exploding.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

For this debate it is not important how much energy the reactor can release when it explodes. It is only important, how much energy the reactor can release without exploding.

Agreed, if the material in a contemporary nuclear reactor was capable of reaching super critical mass and exploding it is vastly greater than the usable power the reactor can generate safely.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

They aren't? The red dwarf entry for Wikipedia disagrees with you as do other sources, like this one.

So, you like, want to try that again?

Point taken, but you have no reason to believe that Tenn was referring to red dwarf stars rather than stars like our sun, which would quite clearly be what non Scientific folks like Tenn would be thinking about when referring to main sequence stars. If a random person states that something weighs over ten times that of a car, he/she is probably referring to a standard sized car and not an antique car or a luxury car with cargo in it.

If it didn't work...

Combined with the ANH novelization's quote about the Death Star's chain-reaction explosion of the reactor producing the liberated energies of a "small sun", and the whole thing makes perfect sense my way, not yours.

"if it didn't work" is referring to a misfire. Therefore, the short burst that is mentioned is the superlaser being charged. You have no reason to believe that a hypermatter misfire is any more powerful than the superlaser itself. Not to mention that the quote states that the hypermatter is capable of generating short bursts that powerful; nothing is given to indicate that a misfire is needed to do that.

Please, this is dishonest on your part. The fact that it was improved in order to allow star destroyer sized vessels carry hypermatter reactors. What destroyed Battle Lance was a flaw that because they attempted to compress the reactor to that size, it went boom. Whether or not they got around the issue is another matter, but this improvement was not because of prior existing star destroyer hypermatter reactors, just simply that this was the first time one had been made that could supposedly fit on board a ship that size. Take nuclear reactors IRL as a more accurate example. Most of them tend to be used in immobile, land-based reactors of huge size, or on large navy vessels. To get a fission reactor small enough to fit on a jet fighter and power it takes some doing. Most research into that sort of thing got shelved a long time ago due to the issues involved with miniaturizing the power plant as well as the highly radioactive exaust, shielding to prevent radiation sickness with the crew, not to mention what would happen if there was a containment failure.

I would request for you to give your startling lack of sources to back this up. Prove that hypermatter reactors were rare on star destroyers when the quote does not at all imply that, several sources mention hypermatter reactors being on star destroyers, often times quite directly and blatantly, and the novel itself implies it too:

"the greatest challenge was powering both of them...power, Bevel had said, was not infinite, even on a station this size, fueled by the largest hypermatter reactor ever built" - "largest hypermatter reactor ever built" implies that smaller ones have been built. This is further reinforced by the fact that building a hypermatter reactor that big was a huge challenge, which is opposite to your claim that building smaller hypermatter reactors is harder.

More blatant evidence for hypermatter:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hypermatter
http://www.holonetnews.com/50/business/1344_2.html
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia has a section on it
The ROTS and AOTC ICS blatantly confirm it
Rogue Planet

This is getting tiring. Hypermatter reactors are blatantly stated to be on star destroyers. All your whining about it won't change things.

That an attempt was made to make a hypermatter reactor that could fit an ISD as opposed to needing a small moon to house it would also constitute "improved" as well. Every other source, such as the RoTS novelization all indicate fusion power as the primary power source for everything from podracers to starships.
-Mike

No, an attempt was made to make a new, improved hypermatter reactor. Nowhere is it stated or implied in the slightest that it was the first hypermatter reactor to be used on a star destroyer, and your blatant lying isn't changing that. Your logic is like me saying that, because Toyota failed in testing a new prototype piston engine on a car, that cars don't have piston engines. It's logic so bad, it's very annoying.

The ROTS and AOTC ICS blatantly state that hypermatter is used on star destroyers. You can deny it all you want, but it's canon.

[Mike DiCenso]

Point taken, but you have no reason to believe that Tenn was referring to red dwarf stars rather than stars like our sun, which would quite clearly be what non Scientific folks like Tenn would be thinking about when referring to main sequence stars. If a random person states that something weighs over ten times that of a car, he/she is probably referring to a standard sized car and not an antique car or a luxury car with cargo in it.

Sure it could be that. But why are you trying to wank up the DS novel version of the hypermatter reactor when we know full well they did not need 1e32 W much less 1e38 W
to power the battlestation? Even if we went with your assertion that Tenn is refering to G-type stars, like our own real-life Sol, that's still thousands of times less power than what you want it to be. The Sun is approximately 4 x 10e26 W. Doubling or tripling that won't make the reactor 1e32 W, no matter how hard you wish for it to be. Hell, even if we somehow made "several" mean 10 G-type stars, it still is thousands of times too weak to reach ICS-level 1e32 to 1e38 W. This is just the way it is. Again, combined with the knowledge from the very same novel you are trying to cherrypick from, the idea that Tenn is refering even to G-type stars, is out the window since we know that the DS superlaser doesn't even need a fraction of that power to do what it does. Moving the station may or may not require 1e25 J, given that mass lightening does apparently exist in SW to some degree. So what does that leave us? Turbolasers? Gravity and life-support? None of those based on other quotes and seperate sources do not require uber bazillions of TW to support. Add in the release of an exploding DS reactor at "small sun" yeild from the ANH novelization, and we're back down to looking at red dwarf stars, if even that.

"if it didn't work" is referring to a misfire. Therefore, the short burst that is mentioned is the superlaser being charged. You have no reason to believe that a hypermatter misfire is any more powerful than the superlaser itself. Not to mention that the quote states that the hypermatter is capable of generating short bursts that powerful; nothing is given to indicate that a misfire is needed to do that.

We have no reason to assume that it does not, either. The context of the statement and all other factors indicate a misfire will result in the hypermatter reactor going boom with the yeild of several stars worth of energy. That's clear enough, it has nothing to do with the superlaser exploding at all.

I would request for you to give your startling lack of sources to back this up. Prove that hypermatter reactors were rare on star destroyers when the quote does not at all imply that, several sources mention hypermatter reactors being on star destroyers, often times quite directly and blatantly, and the novel itself implies it too:

"the greatest challenge was powering both of them...power, Bevel had said, was not infinite, even on a station this size, fueled by the largest hypermatter reactor ever built" - "largest hypermatter reactor ever built" implies that smaller ones have been built. This is further reinforced by the fact that building a hypermatter reactor that big was a huge challenge, which is opposite to your claim that building smaller hypermatter reactors is harder.

More blatant evidence for hypermatter:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hypermatter
http://www.holonetnews.com/50/business/1344_2.html
The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia has a section on it
The ROTS and AOTC ICS blatantly confirm it
Rogue Planet

This is getting tiring. Hypermatter reactors are blatantly stated to be on star destroyers. All your whining about it won't change things.

All your twisting of quotes and such will not change anything since you have not shown any evidence beyond a few ICS books of such a thing. This is yet more proof of it:

"Today, we use hypermatter reactions to power the largest of lightspeed drives, but there are millions of other uses just waiting to be exploited," said scientist and engineer Paldis Doxin of the Magrody Institute. "Properly harnessing this energy could handle planetary power needs and revolutionize deep space mining."

What hyperdrives are being powered? Star destroyers? And only the largest of them are being powered, nothing is stated beyond this, and the reaction from Doxin is as if this power source is new and revolutionary, like the way nuclear fission power for ships was in the 1950s in real life. This is closer to my analogies than to yours.

Proof? Try this article on solar ionization reactors, also from Wookiepedia. "The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" in almost every edition that I know of refers to SIRs as the power source for ISDs, not hypermatter, though some have tried to equate SIRs with hypermatter reactors when anyone who's read the original ANH: ICS knows full well that they are not the same and that hypermatter was unique only to the Death Star since nothing else could provide the power it needed.

No, an attempt was made to make a new, improved hypermatter reactor. Nowhere is it stated or implied in the slightest that it was the first hypermatter reactor to be used on a star destroyer, and your blatant lying isn't changing that. Your logic is like me saying that, because Toyota failed in testing a new prototype piston engine on a car, that cars don't have piston engines. It's logic so bad, it's very annoying.

The ROTS and AOTC ICS blatantly state that hypermatter is used on star destroyers. You can deny it all you want, but it's canon.

Bull. I used a far better analogy, one which you decided to snip, rather than address. I will remind you of it:

"Take nuclear reactors IRL as a more accurate example. Most of them tend to be used in immobile, land-based reactors of huge size, or on large navy vessels. To get a fission reactor small enough to fit on a jet fighter and power it takes some doing. Most research into that sort of thing got shelved a long time ago due to the issues involved with miniaturizing the power plant as well as the highly radioactive exaust, shielding to prevent radiation sickness with the crew, not to mention what would happen if there was a containment failure."

Again, my analogy fits better than yours, takes all relevant information, and combines it to produce a more accurate picture of SW tech. Yours is based around the highest possible cherrypicking wank and even self-feeds on the same tired AOTC:ICS and ROTS: ICS books, which you chose to go with when you picked your hypermatter Wookiepedia article. Everyone else in this thread and elsewhere have brought this up with you, you tend to focus on the same source over and over, then look to trying to fit other sources to that, even when they clearly do not. When that is pointed out, you either ignore it or you try to turn it into a semantics debate.
-Mike

[Admiral Breetai]

Wait...what? SW has valid science, who claimed that? Cause I've seen the occasional Trekkie say the same thing, when its clear that ST is no better off.

Got a link?

the only Valid thing about Trek seems to be warp drive may one day be real..and supposedly they wanna eventually try harnessing anti matter as a power source

but neither are..realistic and thats why we love 'em

as for SDN'ers claiming realism? I have seen it many many times on CBR during the board wars I can't say for deathnotes own personal experiences..but many times I'd see SDN'ers demanding we dismiss superman feats because their unscientific and say an ISD can drop him because well Wars tech is more based in reality and is realistically scientific

seen it many times..in really asinine ways which kinda surprised me