The Death Star's power output confirmed!

[Mr. Oragahn]

Had they been smarter, instead of claiming that a ship housed thousands of tonnes of hypermatter fuel, they could have said that the fusion system powered a core that opened some singularity related to hyperspace.

Notice that the EU also describes one of the earlier planetary battle stations as running on a hypermatter core and being able to be fueled by ice comets, obviously highlighting the fusion element of a hypermatter core. Admittedly, you can still twist that into arguing that it means the dihydrogen would be the fuel for the fusion core that helps power the hypermatter core, but nothing like that is suggested at all. There's no mention of hypermatter being any different than some fusion of some sort.

Eventually, to make everyone happy, you could argue that the hypermatter is a matter that is even lighter than hydrogen.

What is intriguing is the bit from the quotation Mike provided:

"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."

Notice the last bit? Earth regularly consumes, on the average, about 12.6 TW, up to a total of several gigatons of energy per year (~400 EJ, with wide fluctuations between figures by two dozens).
I find it quite odd that there is anything new to provide to deep space mining either.

EDIT: and if you scale the power consumption level up and see what we get for a population of 6~7 trillion people, it's about 12.6 petawatts. You get in the low gigatons per second only for a planet with quadrillions of people. If that's the kind of super duper core that's currently being tested on some of the meanest and biggest star destroyers...
I think that's another bullet in the ICS corpse.

[Mr. Oragahn]

On a side note, there's this amusingly similarly titled thread at spacebattles, Star Wars: Death Star confirms the Death Star's power generation, and I saw Mith's post which reminded me of something I read some time ago.

Shit doesn't tend to explode when you use a hyperdrive.

There's that KJA book, "Dark Apprentice", in which Ackbar uses a suicidal tactic to destroy one of Daala's ISDs, the Manticore, during the 2nd Battle of Mon Calamari. He sets the barely assembled Startide on a collision course, with the new hyperdrive core ready to overload:

The actions of the Imperial commander tell me all I need," Ackbar
said. "Their main target is indeed the shipyards. Moments after these
two Star Destroyers came out of hyperspace, a third also emerged,
concealed in the shadow of our moon. The vanguard attack is designed to
lure us away from the shipyards, tricking us into throwing our entire
defenses against a feint. When the third Star Destroyer comes in at full
sublight speed, the shipyards will be helpless. With one run the third
Star Destroyer can obliterate our starship assembly facilities with
virtually no losses of its own."
"But, Admiral," the city commander said, "why did you just withdraw
all of our forces from the shipyards?"
Ackbar nodded. "Because you are going to give me remote command of
that ship." He indicated the huge spacedock hangar where the skeletal
hull of the new battle cruiser Startide hung in orbit.
"But, sir, none of the Startide's weapons are functional."
"But its engines work, if I am not mistaken?"
"Yes," the city commander said, "we tested the sublight engines
only last week. The hyperdrive reactor core has been installed, but we
have never taken the ship into hyperspace."
"Not necessary," Ackbar said. "Have all the construction engineers
been evacuated?"
"Yes, at first sign of the attack."
"Then give me remote operations."
"Admiral--was the city commander said tentatively, then punched in
a command-code sequence. "If it were anyone other than you..."
Taking control, Ackbar stepped into the field where virtual images
were projected with a parallax designed for wide-set telescopic eyes.
The half-constructed ship powered up its engines and locked into
drone mode. With an inaudible roar of massive sublight engines the
unarmed battleship crawled away from the orbital shipyards, picking up
speed as it ascended from the planet's gravity well. The engines were
powerful enough to haul along the entire connected framework of the
spacedock.
Ackbar didn't mind. The more mass, the better.

...

Ackbar felt as if he were part of the massive derelict ship as he
controlled it from the core of Foamwander City. He paid no attention to
the loud status reports and alarms in Central Command. His entire body
was an extension of the Startide, and he stared through sensor eyes.
Its engines added velocity to the great hulk. Calamari's moon grew
larger as he approached it, then began to streak by close to the airless
cratered surface and out of sensor range to the dark side of the moon.
Where the third Star Destroyer lay in wait.
Ackbar powered up the Startide's hyperdrive reactors and shut off
the automatic coolant systems. Alarms ran through his body as the ship's
warning routines screamed at him. But Ackbar increased the power output,
trying to hold it in, restraining the seething energy that waited to
explode from the great uncompleted battleship.
As he brought the Startide around the curve of the moon, Ackbar saw
the arrowhead shape of a third Star Destroyer just powering up its
weapons batteries. "There it is."
The third Star Destroyer suddenly detected the Mon Calamari battle
cruiser and began unleashing a flurry of turbolaser bolts--but Ackbar
didn't care.
One of the blasts detonated a joint in the spacedock framework
surrounding the Startide, and a network of girders dropped into space.
Molten droplets flew from the starboard flank where a direct hit
vaporized part of the hull.
Ackbar drove on at full speed on his suicide run, heading directly
down the Star Destroyer's throat. The Imperial ship continued to fire.
Ackbar released the last safety mechanisms that held the unshielded
hyperdrive reactor in check. The super-heated energy furnace would reach
its flash point within seconds.
He disconnected himself from the command console and let the laws
of physics take their course.

...

On the screen Daala saw her third Star Destroyer and the skeletal
Calamarian star cruiser. It looked ridiculously cumbersome, dragged back
by heavy construction frameworks--yet it moved inexorably. Daala
understood the suicide tactic immediately.
"Get out of there!"
The Manticore veered to get out of the Startide's path, but the
Calamarian cruiser came on too fast. The Manticore's turbolaser
batteries did nothing to slow its approach.
Daala held her back rigid, forcing herself not to wince. She
gripped the cold rail at her bridge station. Her knuckles whitened. The
plasteel floor seemed to drop out from under her. Her dry mouth opened
in a wordless shout of No!
The Calamarian battleship struck the underbelly of the Manticore.
Just before the impact, though, the Startide went nova, erupting into
blinding waves of energy that tore the Manticore apart.
Captain Brusc's transmission cut off abruptly.
Daala turned away, gritting her teeth and refusing to let acid
tears of failure well up in her green eyes. She thought of all the
weaponry, all the personnel, all the responsibility that had just been
destroyed.
She stared into space, blinded by the brilliant double explosion
that flowed out behind Calamari's moon, creating an artificial eclipse.

Interesting that a ship's pristine hyperdrive, set to overload, releases an amount of energy obviously much greater than anything we've seen come from a capital ship, especially considering the usual kilotonish descriptions of ISD firepower from the same KJA.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

The AOTC/ROTS ICS's confirm hypermatter being on star destroyers. Iirc they also stated that said reactors are contained by fusion reactors/complement them, thus effectively retconning source materials implying the sole use of fusion reactors. There are no canon sources contradicting this, so it's canon. I could get into an argument about the Battle Lance quote's meaning and how the lack of any mention of the improved prototype hypermatter reactor being new in that it's smaller than usual; that would have been a pretty big deal, but the protagonist whose PoV it was in did not mention or even imply it, and the hypermatter reactor of the Death Star was said to the largest ever built, implying the existence of smaller ones, but the ICS's are enough for this. They confirm the joint use of hypermatter reactors and fusion, and no sources outright contradict this.

As to the nature of the weekly output of several main sequence stars:

1. Since the protagonist whose PoV it was on admits to not being a scientist, if he thinks main sequence, he'd be thinking of stars like our sun, not red dwarfs
2. Weekly output. Several stars. In one burst.
3. The quote was in the context of the possibility of the superlaser somehow misfiring. A misfire would not be likely to actually be more powerful than the blast itself; that wouldn't make much sense, so therefore the mention would be of the power of the superlaser, aka from the hypermatter reactor
4. Further evidence is that the protagonist whose PoV it was in admitted to not knowing the math behind the hypermatter reactor; a somewhat lampshade of the fact that nobody would really know it given that it doesn't exist in real life as in hypermatter reactors, yet he knew about that weekly output of several main sequence stars thing. He obviously heard it from someone like an engineer, who would have talked about the power output of the hypermatter reactor and/or the energy of the superlaser, not the energy released in a misfire; why would he/she talk about that?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Trouble is, Saxton's additions to the EU have been more problematic than helping and useful.
I pointed out the existence of a clarification about a hypermatter core could be. In fact, the EU always agreed that the DS used a fusion core of some sort. The OT:CIS called it a hypermatter core, and "Rogue Planet" just bridged the two concepts, by showing that advancements in hypermatter technology could allow Bevelisk to build a core good enough for a large battle station. Said core was called an implosion core, and could get its fuel from ice asteroids, without ever mentioning anything about an inner power system or annihilation.
So yes, by the rules of retcons, if we strictly adhere to the EU's policy, any addition from Saxton that is not contradicted by some younger EU material or higher canon is quite a fact. The problem is that it's hard to admit that over 99% of the EU should get screwed because of a few books that decided to change everything according to the views of a minority channeled through the authoritative power of one writer/consultant of a given time. After all, the Holocron doesn't really mention the importance of time, and is far more concerned with coherency and stability, which Saxton's adds have little to do with.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Trouble is, Saxton's additions to the EU have been more problematic than helping and useful.
I pointed out the existence of a clarification about a hypermatter core could be. In fact, the EU always agreed that the DS used a fusion core of some sort. The OT:CIS called it a hypermatter core, and "Rogue Planet" just bridged the two concepts, by showing that advancements in hypermatter technology could allow Bevelisk to build a core good enough for a large battle station. Said core was called an implosion core, and could get its fuel from ice asteroids, without ever mentioning anything about an inner power system or annihilation.
So yes, by the rules of retcons, if we strictly adhere to the EU's policy, any addition from Saxton that is not contradicted by some younger EU material or higher canon is quite a fact. The problem is that it's hard to admit that over 99% of the EU should get screwed because of a few books that decided to change everything according to the views of a minority channeled through the authoritative power of one writer/consultant of a given time. After all, the Holocron doesn't really mention the importance of time, and is far more concerned with coherency and stability, which Saxton's adds have little to do with.

The AOTC and ROTS ICS's effectively retcon claims of fusion reactors in star destroyers by saying that fusion reactors are somehow used in complement with hypermatter reactors. This actually makes sense. Whatever author claimed that the Death Star used a fusion reactor clearly was either referring to a super-powerful fusion that we don't know about or was careless when thinking about it, probably the latter. Even an antimatter reactor the mass of the Earth would not be able to generate the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor. Even to move the thing would require energy far in excess of any known form of reaction, including antimatter.

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations. Meanwhile, other reference books often times make stupid claims, such as the Death Star having a fusion reactor and turbolasers having a maximum range of 30 km, even though G canon clearly shows turbolasers firing far farther than 30 km.

[Picard]

EU is not canon, and therefore cannot be "reliable". Either we use EU from both or we don't use EU at all. Plus even then ICS is in contradiction with canon, unless we use only EU for both.

[Khas]

Trouble is, Saxton's additions to the EU have been more problematic than helping and useful.
I pointed out the existence of a clarification about a hypermatter core could be. In fact, the EU always agreed that the DS used a fusion core of some sort. The OT:CIS called it a hypermatter core, and "Rogue Planet" just bridged the two concepts, by showing that advancements in hypermatter technology could allow Bevelisk to build a core good enough for a large battle station. Said core was called an implosion core, and could get its fuel from ice asteroids, without ever mentioning anything about an inner power system or annihilation.
So yes, by the rules of retcons, if we strictly adhere to the EU's policy, any addition from Saxton that is not contradicted by some younger EU material or higher canon is quite a fact. The problem is that it's hard to admit that over 99% of the EU should get screwed because of a few books that decided to change everything according to the views of a minority channeled through the authoritative power of one writer/consultant of a given time. After all, the Holocron doesn't really mention the importance of time, and is far more concerned with coherency and stability, which Saxton's adds have little to do with.

The AOTC and ROTS ICS's effectively retcon claims of fusion reactors in star destroyers by saying that fusion reactors are somehow used in complement with hypermatter reactors. This actually makes sense. Whatever author claimed that the Death Star used a fusion reactor clearly was either referring to a super-powerful fusion that we don't know about or was careless when thinking about it, probably the latter. Even an antimatter reactor the mass of the Earth would not be able to generate the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor. Even to move the thing would require energy far in excess of any known form of reaction, including antimatter.

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations. Meanwhile, other reference books often times make stupid claims, such as the Death Star having a fusion reactor and turbolasers having a maximum range of 30 km, even though G canon clearly shows turbolasers firing far farther than 30 km.

Just because he's an astrophysicist doesn't mean he can't be biased. He was part of the versus debate before writing that book. As for another case of biased science, just look at one of the former Soviet ministers of science, who disagreed with Darwin's theory of evolution and preferred Lamarck's theory, because it agreed with Communist ideology. Of course, the guy was forced to resign, but that still proves that just because someone's a scientist doesn't make them unbiased.

[Lucky]

Trouble is, Saxton's additions to the EU have been more problematic than helping and useful.
I pointed out the existence of a clarification about a hypermatter core could be. In fact, the EU always agreed that the DS used a fusion core of some sort. The OT:CIS called it a hypermatter core, and "Rogue Planet" just bridged the two concepts, by showing that advancements in hypermatter technology could allow Bevelisk to build a core good enough for a large battle station. Said core was called an implosion core, and could get its fuel from ice asteroids, without ever mentioning anything about an inner power system or annihilation.
So yes, by the rules of retcons, if we strictly adhere to the EU's policy, any addition from Saxton that is not contradicted by some younger EU material or higher canon is quite a fact. The problem is that it's hard to admit that over 99% of the EU should get screwed because of a few books that decided to change everything according to the views of a minority channeled through the authoritative power of one writer/consultant of a given time. After all, the Holocron doesn't really mention the importance of time, and is far more concerned with coherency and stability, which Saxton's adds have little to do with.

The AOTC and ROTS ICS's effectively retcon claims of fusion reactors in star destroyers by saying that fusion reactors are somehow used in complement with hypermatter reactors. This actually makes sense. Whatever author claimed that the Death Star used a fusion reactor clearly was either referring to a super-powerful fusion that we don't know about or was careless when thinking about it, probably the latter. Even an antimatter reactor the mass of the Earth would not be able to generate the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor. Even to move the thing would require energy far in excess of any known form of reaction, including antimatter.

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations. Meanwhile, other reference books often times make stupid claims, such as the Death Star having a fusion reactor and turbolasers having a maximum range of 30 km, even though G canon clearly shows turbolasers firing far farther than 30 km.

Why is the Death Stars having fusion reactors a stupid claim? It in no way puts an upper limit on the output of the death Stars reactors which in the case of the DS-II appears to just be a scaled up version of the reactor seen in "Weapons Factory", and we are told that everything is powered by fusion reactors in the novelizations as I recall.

[Mr. Oragahn]

The AOTC and ROTS ICS's effectively retcon claims of fusion reactors in star destroyers by saying that fusion reactors are somehow used in complement with hypermatter reactors. This actually makes sense.

The novel "Death Star" says that one of those new hypermatter cores were tested on some late ISD, the Talon or something. It's vague if the failed attempt was due to the novelty of the concept, or due to that particular hypermatter core model, meaning that older hypermatter cores were already used.

Whatever author claimed that the Death Star used a fusion reactor clearly was either referring to a super-powerful fusion that we don't know about or was careless when thinking about it, probably the latter.

Probably the later.

Even an antimatter reactor the mass of the Earth would not be able to generate the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor.

You get some e41 J if you annihilate Earth. Faaaar more than needed.

Even to move the thing would require energy far in excess of any known form of reaction, including antimatter.

Based on what? Not to say that this is quite a regular problem in soft SF. It's generally assumed that the engines are just damn super-efficient.
A bit of lightening tech or some inertia fuckery engine helps a bit.

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations.

Oh no, they're certainly not. As always, the calcs can be all accurate as you want, but if they stem from erroneous premises, your calcs will be useless. And that's the problem with Wong, Saxton and their squealing minions. They just don't get it.

Meanwhile, other reference books often times make stupid claims, such as the Death Star having a fusion reactor and turbolasers having a maximum range of 30 km, even though G canon clearly shows turbolasers firing far farther than 30 km.

Depends on the TL model, the power, the target and the relative velocities.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

The novel "Death Star" says that one of those new hypermatter cores were tested on some late ISD, the Talon or something. It's vague if the failed attempt was due to the novelty of the concept, or due to that particular hypermatter core model, meaning that older hypermatter cores were already used.

It's obviously the latter. Any claims of the former, aka hypermatter being a novelty to star destroyers, is clearly a lack of knowledge of acceptance of the fact that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's confirm the existense of hypermatter on star destroyers, and no canon sources contradict this.

Probably the later.

Then why the freak do you trust sources that you admit are written by careless authors over one written by somebody who obviously took the effort to try to derive the figures from calculations?

You get some e41 J if you annihilate Earth. Faaaar more than needed.

Uh, I got the calculations wrong. Right, but a an antimatter reactor the size of the moon would not be enough (assuming that I got the math right) ;)

Based on what? Not to say that this is quite a regular problem in soft SF. It's generally assumed that the engines are just damn super-efficient.
A bit of lightening tech or some inertia fuckery engine helps a bit.

Even if the engines were 99.999999999999999% efficient, you'd still need a mighty powerful reactor to move the Death Star. Mighty as in more powerful than the sun.

Oh no, they're certainly not. As always, the calcs can be all accurate as you want, but if they stem from erroneous premises, your calcs will be useless. And that's the problem with Wong, Saxton and their squealing minions. They just don't get it.

And as you partially admitted, most of the writers of guides and novels do not care about this debate or consistency in terms of weapon firepower. There are many books in which firepower, durability and such are contradicted within a book. And yet you want to support them over an astrophysicist who actually tried to have the calculations make sense? Oh, because you're biased towards Star Trek, right?

Depends on the TL model, the power, the target and the relative velocities.

In terms of maximum range of TLs in space, the target and relative velocities doesn't really matter, except for the effective range. LTLs I can understand being relatively short ranged, but HTLs have G canon backing them up as having quite a long range.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

The AOTC and ROTS ICS's effectively retcon claims of fusion reactors in star destroyers by saying that fusion reactors are somehow used in complement with hypermatter reactors. This actually makes sense. Whatever author claimed that the Death Star used a fusion reactor clearly was either referring to a super-powerful fusion that we don't know about or was careless when thinking about it, probably the latter.

C canon and lower cannot retcon G canon no matter how its spun.

Even an antimatter reactor the mass of the Earth would not be able to generate the power of the Death Star's hypermatter reactor. Even to move the thing would require energy far in excess of any known form of reaction, including antimatter.

Why would it?, SW has inertial dampeners, anti-gravity along with the usual sci-fi stuff that allows them to manouver and stroll about while accelerating so for all we know the DS could be easy to move.

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations.

The person you are refering to was part of VS debating long before he got that job and even contradicted his own figures on his personal website by a large margin when he added those absurd stats.

Meanwhile, other reference books often times make stupid claims, such as the Death Star having a fusion reactor and turbolasers having a maximum range of 30 km, even though G canon clearly shows turbolasers firing far farther than 30 km.

The same can be said for the high end crap in the ICS and how it cannot be reconciled with what we see over and over in G and now T canon along with almost all of C canon.

[Praeothmin]

The fact is that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's are actually among the most reliable reference guides in Star Wars, because they were written by an astrophysicist who actually knows what he's talking about and tries to keep things believable using actual calculations.

The scientist in question used his interpretaion of SW for his calculations, and sometimes created completely new technology, or a new interpretation of said technology, in order for it to fit his views (like the neutrino emitting shields for SW ships)...

His AotC ICS isn't even based onthe movie, because it came out 6 months before the movie, while there were still SFX being done on it, so he invented a shitload of information, such as the Acclamatos TLs...

Heck, that guy even said there was a holocaust on Endor created by the DS II's explosion, which means, judging by the movie, that all the Rebels having a party on Endor after the fight died within minutes after the movie ended, since the explosion of such a magnitude would have destroyed the surface of Endor facing it (where the Rebels were feasting) minutes after the explosion, from all the raining debris...
Plus, the Endor holocaust was debunked by later novels...

[Mr. Oragahn]

The novel "Death Star" says that one of those new hypermatter cores were tested on some late ISD, the Talon or something. It's vague if the failed attempt was due to the novelty of the concept, or due to that particular hypermatter core model, meaning that older hypermatter cores were already used.

It's obviously the latter. Any claims of the former, aka hypermatter being a novelty to star destroyers, is clearly a lack of knowledge of acceptance of the fact that the AOTC and ROTS ICS's confirm the existense of hypermatter on star destroyers, and no canon sources contradict this.

It's true, even Rogue Planet is older than the ICSes, and mentions of hypermatter cores are very rare. That said, the later interpretation is only the single possible option if we limit ourselves to the ICSes.

But I actually got the clarification I needed about the so called time based autoretcon:

After three years at LucasArts, I learned that the Publishing Department at Lucas Licensing was looking for someone to create a Star Wars continuity database.

Wizards: Let's say that you come across two or more contradictory sources while chasing down a reference. How do you decide which one to accept as "canon"?

Leland: Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience? Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is "correct."

Time isn't even listed as a factor, and even those which get listed aren't considered automatically final.
Besides, knowing about LC's other comments, we know that they even don't hesitate to isolate elements from a given source as to sort out what is EU and what is G canon. Most obviously, when doing so, they can also compare pure-EU elements from two conflicting sources on a given subject, and really decide on a case-by-case basis. So they can keep most of the ICS elements but remove all the Saxtonite junk.
It's even possible that an ICS sells less than your random EU fiction book.
I'm sure a book like Millennium Falcon contains lots of interesting details as well.

Probably the later.

Then why the freak do you trust sources that you admit are written by careless authors over one written by somebody who obviously took the effort to try to derive the figures from calculations?

I said probably, because the first option requires the author to know a lot about fusion and go the distance to invent some special fusion system.
It doesn't really fit with the general idea of fusion SF writers have.
Probably just means not caring as much as to run super duper calcs.
I reject Saxton because his stance is purely dishonest and wankish, that's all.

You get some e41 J if you annihilate Earth. Faaaar more than needed.

Uh, I got the calculations wrong. Right, but a an antimatter reactor the size of the moon would not be enough (assuming that I got the math right) ;)

1. It all depends on the mass of the fuel.
2. Wrong again. You're still one order of magnitude above the highest figure provided by Saxton for the destruction of Alderaan.

There are many books in which firepower, durability and such are contradicted within a book.

Not always, and even if this were to happen, a simple rationalization would make the whole thing coherent enough.

And yet you want to support them over an astrophysicist who actually tried to have the calculations make sense? Oh, because you're biased towards Star Trek, right?

No. First because you asked me ONE question about ONE author regarding the fusion core of the DS, and I gave you a simple but not definitive answer. Secondly because I'm not biased towards Star Trek. Thirdly because Saxton is so biased towards his own vision of SW that it's absurd.

Depends on the TL model, the power, the target and the relative velocities.

In terms of maximum range of TLs in space, the target and relative velocities doesn't really matter, except for the effective range. LTLs I can understand being relatively short ranged, but HTLs have G canon backing them up as having quite a long range.

Hundreds of kms at best, and that's from the novelization's author, not Lucas. Besides, the same book, I think, speaks of TLs firing at lightspeed, which we know is false, unless you verse into this pants on head retarded definition of a lightspeed weapon purposedly made to spin along the forward axis so the beam actually travels at speeds between hundreds of meters and a couple kilometers per second.

[User1462]

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.

So you double-post with what you admit is a ridiculous dertailment and redirction of the thread, claiming that Star Trek is "Scientifically (sic) inaccurate."
Prove it. Anti-matter and space-warps aren't real? Tell every physicist since Einstein.

[User1462]

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.

Can you prove ANYTHING without the EU-fanwanking? It's not accepted here, so go back to SDN if you can't.
From what you claim, one could just make a hypermatter-warhead and blow up anything of any size.