Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.fan.starwars » size of the Death Star
size of the Death Star [message #236395] Mi, 22 März 2006 03:45
Sean376  
Is there any info out there that describes just how big the Death Star
really is and are both of the Death Stars in a New Hope And ROTJ the
same size or not?

Is it the size of a small moon or a small planet?

Also any realistic idea how long it would take to build one?
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236396 ] Mi, 22 März 2006 04:22
OSI  
Sean White wrote:

> Is there any info out there that describes just how big the Death Star
> really is and are both of the Death Stars in a New Hope And ROTJ the
> same size or not?

You should check this out.

http://www.merzo.net/

--
OSI
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236398 ] Mi, 22 März 2006 05:32
Anybody  
In article <28052-4420BA45-3003 [at] storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>,
Sean376 [at] webtv.net (Sean White) wrote:

> Is there any info out there that describes just how big the Death Star
> really is and are both of the Death Stars in a New Hope And ROTJ the
> same size or not?
>
> Is it the size of a small moon or a small planet?

The sizes are given in various reference books. The actual size of the
first Death Star tends to be a little different from one book to the
next, but here's the sizes from "The Essential Guide to Vehicles and
Vessels" book:

Prototype Death Star (EU) diameter = 120km (approx. 74.5miles)

First Death Star (ANH) diameter = 120km (approx. 74.5miles)
"the size of a Class IV moon"

Second Death Star (RotJ) diameter = 160km (approx. 99.4miles)

For comparison, the Earth's Moon has a diameter of 3476km (approx.
2160miles), so the Death Stars and Class IV moons are really very small
on the universe's scale.

A difference of "only" 40km between the two Death Star diameters may
not seem like much, but when you consider they're spheres, the
difference is quite a large amount of volume and surface area is added.

The website given by OSI is a great place to get a rough idea of the
sizes of various sci-fi ships (and thing like the Statue of Liberty and
Space Shuttle). Some of the scales are a little incorrect though.





> Also any realistic idea how long it would take to build one?

We apparently see the beginnings of the construction of the first Death
Star at the end of Episode III, which means it takes 20 years to build
the first Death Star, which seems rather ridiculous. :o\

*BUT*
If you take the construction we see in Episode III as the building of
the EU's Prototype Death Star (which is the same size from the above
quotes), then it makes a bit more sense.

It's unknown when the second Death Star actually began construction,
but given the time of building the first one it would have to have been
started only a few years later at most, so probably around 15 years
before ANH ... although the resource books say the Emperor decided to
build the second one AFTER the first was destroyed.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236407 ] Do, 23 März 2006 00:24
Squibnick  
It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
worlds and billions of sentients, that taking twenty YEARS to build the
Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
completed, construction should go rather swiftly. The Endor one could
have indeed been built since the destruction of the first at Yavin, for
the construction crews would have been more experienced after having
built the original.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236409 ] Do, 23 März 2006 02:57
SpammersDie  
"Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15777-4421DCC9-14 [at] storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
> It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> worlds and billions of sentients,

This isn't some home SETI project - the Death Star is top secret classified
stuff. You don't let "billions of sentients" work on it.


> that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> completed, construction should go rather swiftly.

All we saw at the end of RotS was a hull. R & D on the planet-killer laser
was most likely the long pole on the project. It probably blew up the first
few prototype Death Stars on its initial test trial. Then they had to start
over with a new superstructure, find and train new engineers to replace the
ones that Vader choked to death over the previous failure -- all that takes
time - it's not like Palpatine can just put out a wanted ad saying "Death
Star engineers wanted. Send resumes to
dsidious [at] imperial-palace.coruscant.wor."

Given that, it's no surprise it took 20 years before someone finally got
that bright idea to install that exhaust port to vent out the energies
radiated by that thing.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236414 ] Do, 23 März 2006 05:35
Anybody  
In article <bgnUf.19213$bn3.948 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"SpammersDie" <xx [at] xx.xx> wrote:

> "Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:15777-4421DCC9-14 [at] storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
> > It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> > worlds and billions of sentients,
>
> This isn't some home SETI project - the Death Star is top secret classified
> stuff. You don't let "billions of sentients" work on it.
>
>
> > that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> > Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> > debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> > completed, construction should go rather swiftly.
>
> All we saw at the end of RotS was a hull. R & D on the planet-killer laser
> was most likely the long pole on the project. It probably blew up the first
> few prototype Death Stars on its initial test trial. Then they had to start
> over with a new superstructure, find and train new engineers to replace the
> ones that Vader choked to death over the previous failure -- all that takes
> time - it's not like Palpatine can just put out a wanted ad saying "Death
> Star engineers wanted. Send resumes to
> dsidious [at] imperial-palace.coruscant.wor."
>
> Given that, it's no surprise it took 20 years before someone finally got
> that bright idea to install that exhaust port to vent out the energies
> radiated by that thing.

And if Microsoft was in charge it'd take 20 years just to download all
the patches and updates. ;-)
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236415 ] Do, 23 März 2006 05:36
Anybody  
In article <15777-4421DCC9-14 [at] storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net>,
Squibnick [at] webtv.net (Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski) wrote:

> It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> worlds and billions of sentients, that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> completed, construction should go rather swiftly. The Endor one could
> have indeed been built since the destruction of the first at Yavin, for
> the construction crews would have been more experienced after having
> built the original.

You could pretend that the scene in Episode III takes places some years
later.

It seems better to think of the Death Star in Episode III as being the
Prototype from the EU. Basing it on the time taken to build the second
Death Star, that gives a more realistic timeline something like:

Episode III Start building Prototype

13 years Build / test / redesign Prototype
6 years Build first Death Star

Episode IV First Death Star completed and destroyed

4 years Build second Death Star

Episode VI Second Death Star ALMOST completed and destroyed

13 years may still seem like a long time, but the sheer size could
cause problems for engines design, etc. and with a few failures and
redesigns it could be about right ... and the Emperor simply would not
tolerate too many failures or delays.

The second Death Star wasn't quite finished and could have been a
little quicker to build since they would learn from building the first
(the Prototype was only ever a skeleton Death Star), but it was also
quite a bit bigger so would obviously take a little longer ... it's
impossible to know which would really take the longest to build.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236441 ] Fr, 24 März 2006 04:00
Squibnick  
"This isn't some home SETI project - the Death Star is top secret
classified stuff. You don't let "billions of sentients" work on it."

The population of the empire was such that they could get as much labor
as they needed to build it as fast as they wanted it. Security was never
really an issue, either. I am sure the Imperial fleet could quarantine
access to the building site and they could set up cloaking and
scrambling fields that would blind visible and scanner wavelengths.
Rumors may circulate that something ominous is going on, but who cares?
Palpie was running a totalitarian state based on terror, the rumor mill
will actually do some good keeping the people in line. Palpies secret
police and spies are everywhere.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236442 ] Fr, 24 März 2006 05:07
h  
Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski wrote:

> "This isn't some home SETI project - the Death Star is top secret
> classified stuff. You don't let "billions of sentients" work on it."
>
> The population of the empire was such that they could get as much labor
> as they needed to build it as fast as they wanted it. Security was never
> really an issue, either. I am sure the Imperial fleet could quarantine
> access to the building site and they could set up cloaking and
> scrambling fields that would blind visible and scanner wavelengths.
> Rumors may circulate that something ominous is going on, but who cares?
> Palpie was running a totalitarian state based on terror, the rumor mill
> will actually do some good keeping the people in line. Palpies secret
> police and spies are everywhere.

There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.

20 years for something as big as the Death Star ( 160km diameter? ),
with the resources of the Empire, is pretty reasonable. The largest
ships we build today ( Queen Mary 2, aircraft carriers, 300m? etc ) take
over three or four years to construct.

H.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236443 ] Fr, 24 März 2006 07:05
OSI  
H wrote:

> There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
> many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
> a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.

Well, ABC has proved that you can build a house (and a nice one too) in
just 7 days with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

It makes sense to _me_ that it would take 20 years to build the DS1.
There are a lot of factors that could be in play that the audience
doesn't know about. Labor problems. Supply problems. Design problems.
Technical problems.

It's this McDonald's mentality we have today that makes everyone think a
Death Star could be built in just a few months or years. ;-)

--
OSI
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236445 ] Fr, 24 März 2006 08:18
Anybody  
In article <5%LUf.101293$g47.19743 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, OSI
<abuse [at] msn.com> wrote:

> H wrote:
>
> > There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
> > many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
> > a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.
>
> Well, ABC has proved that you can build a house (and a nice one too) in
> just 7 days with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.
>
> It makes sense to _me_ that it would take 20 years to build the DS1.
> There are a lot of factors that could be in play that the audience
> doesn't know about. Labor problems. Supply problems. Design problems.
> Technical problems.
>
> It's this McDonald's mentality we have today that makes everyone think a
> Death Star could be built in just a few months or years. ;-)

The "problem" is that the second Death Star only took four years to
build (although not quite completed at that point) and it wasn't
strarted until after the first one was destroyed (according to EU
sources). Therefore it makes absolutely no sense that it would take
five times as long to build the first one. :-\

Besides, it takes the Kaminoans only 10 years to grow, equip and
provide numerous vehicles for an entire army of Clone Troopers ... in
101% secrecy. Admittedly it's probably quicker to mass produce vehicles
of the same design than to build one huge vehicle, but 20 years still
seems silly.

It makes more sense to take the structure seen in Episode III as the
Prototype Death Star, which was later followed by the real first Death
Star we see as finished in Episode IV.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236446 ] Fr, 24 März 2006 09:46
Tracy Hale  
>>
>> Given that, it's no surprise it took 20 years before someone finally got
>> that bright idea to install that exhaust port to vent out the energies
>> radiated by that thing.
>
> And if Microsoft was in charge it'd take 20 years just to download all
> the patches and updates. ;-)

I thought they did build it. Think about it. It had a large hole in it's
security that could be found by anyone who took the time to look. This hole
can be exploited by anyone willing to try a few times although it does
require a little skill.

After the first movie (EPIV) I took a picture of the deathstar and measured
it. The model is about 90 times the diameted of the equitorial trench. That
is supposed to be a mile high docking facility. Thus 90 miles wide. The
second one works out to be about 120.

For those who say this is to small to be considered a moon. The moons of
mars Phobos (27km/~16.5miles in the longest measurement) and Deimos (at
15km/ 9 miles)are a LOT smaller then the D-Star.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236448 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 01:37
OSI  
Anybody wrote:

> The "problem" is that the second Death Star only took four years to
> build

You don't know that for certain.

> (although not quite completed at that point) and it wasn't
> strarted until after the first one was destroyed (according to EU
> sources).

And we all know how reliable the EU is. Is Owen Lars still Obi-Wan's
brother? ;-)


--
OSI
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236449 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 02:36
Anybody  
In article <qh0Vf.103106$g47.86556 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, OSI
<abuse [at] msn.com> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
>
> > The "problem" is that the second Death Star only took four years to
> > build
>
> You don't know that for certain.
>
> > (although not quite completed at that point) and it wasn't
> > strarted until after the first one was destroyed (according to EU
> > sources).
>
> And we all know how reliable the EU is. Is Owen Lars still Obi-Wan's
> brother? ;-)

That's why I said it *was* from the EU.

It's possible that the second Death Star could have been started many
years before ANH, but since the Death Star was supposed to be "The
Ultimate Weapon", why would the Emperor need two of them? And why make
the second bigger when the first was meant to be enough of a deterrent?

It makes more sense for the Emperor to decided to make a new, bigger
and better version after the first was destroyed ... especially since
they could then plug the hole in the defences that Luke used the first
time.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236450 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 03:30
OSI  
Anybody wrote:

> It's possible that the second Death Star could have been started many
> years before ANH, but since the Death Star was supposed to be "The
> Ultimate Weapon", why would the Emperor need two of them?

Well, you know what they say about men and their cars... They're usually
compensating for something else. Same goes for Emperors and their Death
Stars... ;-)

Besides, with two the Empire could be in two places at once. And who
knows, maybe there was a third one in the works already.


--
OSI
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236452 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 05:32
h  
OSI wrote:
> Anybody wrote:
>
>> It's possible that the second Death Star could have been started many
>> years before ANH, but since the Death Star was supposed to be "The
>> Ultimate Weapon", why would the Emperor need two of them?
>
>
> Well, you know what they say about men and their cars... They're usually
> compensating for something else. Same goes for Emperors and their Death
> Stars... ;-)
>
> Besides, with two the Empire could be in two places at once. And who
> knows, maybe there was a third one in the works already.
>
>

Lets see. An Empire of hundreds of thousands of systems, and only ONE
Death Star to keep them in line? If I was the Emporer I'd have an
assembly line cranking them out...

H.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236453 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 06:15
Anybody  
In article <8J3Vf.15716$dy4.1243 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au>, H <H [at] r.c>
wrote:

> OSI wrote:
> > Anybody wrote:
> >
> >> It's possible that the second Death Star could have been started many
> >> years before ANH, but since the Death Star was supposed to be "The
> >> Ultimate Weapon", why would the Emperor need two of them?
> >
> >
> > Well, you know what they say about men and their cars... They're usually
> > compensating for something else. Same goes for Emperors and their Death
> > Stars... ;-)
> >
> > Besides, with two the Empire could be in two places at once. And who
> > knows, maybe there was a third one in the works already.
>
> Lets see. An Empire of hundreds of thousands of systems, and only ONE
> Death Star to keep them in line? If I was the Emporer I'd have an
> assembly line cranking them out...

Once one planet stepped out of line it would get blown to pieces and
then the rest wouldn't even try to do that again. That's why it was
meant to be the ultimate weapon ... plus the Emperor wouldn't go around
wasting money. :-)
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236454 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 06:22
Spencer Meffert  
Anybody wrote:
> In article <qh0Vf.103106$g47.86556 [at] tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, OSI
> <abuse [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Anybody wrote:
>>
>>> The "problem" is that the second Death Star only took four years to
>>> build
>> You don't know that for certain.
>>
>>> (although not quite completed at that point) and it wasn't
>>> strarted until after the first one was destroyed (according to EU
>>> sources).
>> And we all know how reliable the EU is. Is Owen Lars still Obi-Wan's
>> brother? ;-)
>
> That's why I said it *was* from the EU.
>
> It's possible that the second Death Star could have been started many
> years before ANH, but since the Death Star was supposed to be "The
> Ultimate Weapon", why would the Emperor need two of them? And why make
> the second bigger when the first was meant to be enough of a deterrent?
>
> It makes more sense for the Emperor to decided to make a new, bigger
> and better version after the first was destroyed ... especially since
> they could then plug the hole in the defences that Luke used the first
> time.


It reminds me of a line from the movie Contact. "Why build one when you
can build two for twice the price". A true classic, and possibly
relevant when referring to this situation.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236458 ] Sa, 25 März 2006 17:48
Squibnick  
"it takes the Kaminoans only 10 years to grow, equip and provide
numerous vehicles for an entire army of Clone Troopers"

Did the Kaminos build the weapons and equip the stormtroopers, too? I
assumed they were only responsible for providing the actual clones and
the training.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236462 ] So, 26 März 2006 01:50
Anybody  
In article <29607-44257467-614 [at] storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>,
Squibnick [at] webtv.net (Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski) wrote:

> > it takes the Kaminoans only 10 years to grow, equip and provide
> > numerous vehicles for an entire army of Clone Troopers"
>
> Did the Kaminos build the weapons and equip the stormtroopers, too? I
> assumed they were only responsible for providing the actual clones and
> the training.

The Kaminoans are cloners, so they only created and trained the actual
living Clone Troopers, but they also arranged the building of all the
equipment and vehicles by companies / organisations with the expertise
to make them. This sub-contracting was done in a similar way to
Batman's equipment - each company making pieces in secret, not knowing
what anyone else was supplying or why.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236486 ] Mo, 27 März 2006 00:41
Solon  
_Sean White_ spoke thusly on 21/03/2006 9:45 PM:
> Is there any info out there that describes just how big the Death Star
> really is and are both of the Death Stars in a New Hope And ROTJ the
> same size or not?

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/index.ht ml
http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/index. html
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236488 ] Mo, 27 März 2006 00:53
Solon  
_Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski_ spoke thusly on 22/03/2006 6:24 PM:
> It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> worlds and billions of sentients, that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> completed, construction should go rather swiftly. The Endor one could
> have indeed been built since the destruction of the first at Yavin, for
> the construction crews would have been more experienced after having
> built the original.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.starwars/msg/be0daaf8 d5aa47ee
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236497 ] Mo, 27 März 2006 04:38
Tellmeaboutit  
Don't forget it was a government job - consultant cost over runs, fiscal
constraints, someone figuring the whole IT and networking thing out...
easily could have taken 20 years but they probably budgeted for five.


"Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15777-4421DCC9-14 [at] storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
> It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> worlds and billions of sentients, that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> completed, construction should go rather swiftly. The Endor one could
> have indeed been built since the destruction of the first at Yavin, for
> the construction crews would have been more experienced after having
> built the original.
>
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236503 ] Mo, 27 März 2006 08:43
Anybody  
In article <1fIVf.12852$%H.2921 [at] clgrps13>, "Tellmeaboutit"
<Tellmeaboutit [at] eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
> "Talcott Tarnapool Tarnowski" <Squibnick [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:15777-4421DCC9-14 [at] storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
> > It seems that with the Empires resources, hundreds or thousands of
> > worlds and billions of sentients, that taking twenty YEARS to build the
> > Death star in any incarnation is ludicrous. all the testing and
> > debugging might take twenty years, granted. But after R & D is
> > completed, construction should go rather swiftly. The Endor one could
> > have indeed been built since the destruction of the first at Yavin, for
> > the construction crews would have been more experienced after having
> > built the original.
>
> Don't forget it was a government job - consultant cost over runs, fiscal
> constraints, someone figuring the whole IT and networking thing out...
> easily could have taken 20 years but they probably budgeted for five.

The Empire isn't a Government as such ... it's a Dictatorship with only
one person in charge - what Palpatine wants is what happens, and he
wants it NOW!
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236522 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 05:14
Duggy  
H wrote:
> Lets see. An Empire of hundreds of thousands of systems, and only ONE
> Death Star to keep them in line? If I was the Emporer I'd have an
> assembly line cranking them out...

Yes, but you're a diagnosed schizophrenia who's refusing treatment.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: size of the Death Star [message #236523 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 05:14
Duggy  
H wrote:

> There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
> many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
> a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.

Diminishing returns to scale.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: size of the Death Star [message #243328 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 06:53
h  
Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au wrote:

> H wrote:
>
>>Lets see. An Empire of hundreds of thousands of systems, and only ONE
>>Death Star to keep them in line? If I was the Emporer I'd have an
>>assembly line cranking them out...
>
>
> Yes, but you're a diagnosed schizophrenia who's refusing treatment.

You must be thinking of the other H.

H. ( the real one. )
Re: size of the Death Star [message #243329 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 06:55
h  
Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au wrote:

> H wrote:
>
>
>>There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
>>many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
>>a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.
>
>
> Diminishing returns to scale.

Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact term.

H.
Re: size of the Death Star [message #243335 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 14:51
Duggy  
H wrote:
> Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au wrote:
> > H wrote:

> >>Lets see. An Empire of hundreds of thousands of systems, and only ONE
> >>Death Star to keep them in line? If I was the Emporer I'd have an
> >>assembly line cranking them out...
> > Yes, but you're a diagnosed schizophrenia who's refusing treatment.
> You must be thinking of the other H.

> H. ( the real one. )

No, Graham, I'm talking about you.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: size of the Death Star [message #243336 ] Mi, 29 März 2006 14:52
Duggy  
H wrote:
> Paul.Duggan [at] jcu.edu.au wrote:
> > H wrote:
> >>There's a limit to how fast you can build something, regardless of how
> >>many resources you throw at it. It's like saying if one worker can build
> >>a house in three months, 10,000 workers could build one in a few minutes.
> > Diminishing returns to scale.
> Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact term.

Yes, you could. I didn't know the term, I heard it broadcast from your
brain.

===
= DUG.
===
Re: size of the Death Star [message #296561 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 15:16
Ears  
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:36:18 +1200, Anybody
<anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:


>You could pretend that the scene in Episode III takes places some years
>later.
>
>It seems better to think of the Death Star in Episode III as being the
>Prototype from the EU. Basing it on the time taken to build the second
>Death Star, that gives a more realistic timeline something like:
>
> Episode III Start building Prototype
>
> 13 years Build / test / redesign Prototype
> 6 years Build first Death Star
>
> Episode IV First Death Star completed and destroyed
>
> 4 years Build second Death Star
>
> Episode VI Second Death Star ALMOST completed and destroyed
>
>13 years may still seem like a long time, but the sheer size could
>cause problems for engines design, etc. and with a few failures and
>redesigns it could be about right ... and the Emperor simply would not
>tolerate too many failures or delays.
>
>The second Death Star wasn't quite finished and could have been a
>little quicker to build since they would learn from building the first
>(the Prototype was only ever a skeleton Death Star), but it was also
>quite a bit bigger so would obviously take a little longer ... it's
>impossible to know which would really take the longest to build.

I agree that the timeline shown above seems pretty realistic. I am
sorry if the points below have been hashed to death I just wanted to
put in my two cents.

After all, in most construction jobs you have to test your more
complex desgins before you finalize them. In the EU the referred to
the Death Star prototype (the one that was just a wire sphere with
reactor and superlaser) as Proof of Concept only. You make something
that shows the design can and does work, and you use that base to test
engineering concepts BEFORE it is employed in the final model.
Remember that they were building something totally new from scratch
and probably didn't have much of an idea of what to start with.

And when designing something this massively complex it isn't
surprising that a lot of it would be subcontacted out, a good example
would be prefab living modules and food supplies, something univerally
used and not really suspect.

Some of the more specific sections were probably from Imperial
controlled companies, one of the first thing the Emperor did was
nationalize Sinear Fleet Systems, a massive industral base that could
be told to make something and not ask questions.

As for the constuction of the Second Death Star it wouldn't be
suprising that it could be built in a fraction of the time, most of
the kinks would probably have been worked out. As for making it
bigger and more powerful, that's just the Empire's method, bigger,
more powerful is in EVERYTHING they do. Making the design bigger
would only have made sense to the Emperor.

As for the secret being kept, the Empire is a huge place, and the only
place anyone would have had real direct knowledge was probably at the
site itself, once your assigned there, you don't leave. Its probably
what drove Tarkin to construct Maw Installation to begin with (again
EU), he knew that the secret was the most imporant angle. When it
was getting ready to deploy just prior to Ep IV, leaks would have been
more common, it wouild have been as necessary to keep the secret,
which was how the Alliance learned about it. Also I would be willing
to bet that at least a few Alliance operatives, (like Ackbar) would
have been privy to the info and eventually gotten away.

One last item, does anyone know more about the people of the First
Death Star. A lot of people went into its construction, were they
there with their families, were they ordered to separate from their
families. What was life on the Death Star like when off-duty? Was
there any civilian population at all to support the military? What
were the quarters like, were they small and coffin like even in the
vast Death Star or were they larger and more comfortable to support
long termers?

I am curious.
Ears
Vorheriges Thema:The Droids
Nächstes Thema:Windows Update
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Di Mai 22 08:02:26 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,18481 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered