The Death Star: A Pentagon Purchasing Nightmare

[ArmchairGeneral]

You are assuming it's steel versus another alloy ... which btw steel is an invalid assumption considering a civilization that expands 10s of 1000s of systems and have mastered FTL travel for moonsize vessels.

Nope, he's assuming steel. I'm just working within his assumptions. And I think my calculations hold for any building material better than, say, foam rubber. There's just no reason for your material structure to take up 1/10 of your ship's volume, unless you have tons of armor. Which would be silly when you have force fields.

I don't know where he got his "loft to orbit" numbers from. Apparently in the Star Wars universe, you could get something like the Millenium Falcon to orbit with the fuel equivalent of a bottle of BBQ propane.

And maybe the Death Star was plastic. Or organic. Or a highly re-engineered small moon.

This is not in the Star Wars universe.

...calculation of the most basic Death Star's price with current materials and space transport costs here on Earth.

However:

Prices range from about $4,300/kg for a Proton launch...

So 4.3 mil/tonne. But if you want to get it high enough so that it'll stay there long term:

Bulk costs to geosynchronous orbit are currently about $20,000/kg for a Zenit-3SL launch.

20 million. Which is still a heck of a lot cheaper than 95 million, so yeah, I don't know what numbers he's using.

I think his premise is lame. Let's say you buy a quadrillion battle droids. They roam about on their planet, impressing everyone, until the death star blows the planet to atoms.

Or...let's say you buy half a quadrillion battle droids, plus a handful of X-wings. Goodbye Death Star. I think the/a main point of the argument is not to put all your eggs in one expensive basket, especially a basket that may have unseen vulnerabilities because it's so obscenely complex.

[Chogy]

Or...let's say you buy half a quadrillion battle droids, plus a handful of X-wings. Goodbye Death Star. I think the/a main point of the argument is not to put all your eggs in one expensive basket, especially a basket that may have unseen vulnerabilities because it's so obscenely complex.

His point is as subtle as a moose in your living room. It is also not as valid as he supposes. Modern forces, to be effective, need a combination of hi and low technology. Ignore the high-tech portion at your peril. And obviously, you don't make your entire force nothing but B-2 bombers. You take your budget and allocate appropriately.

The empire obviously had the budget to produce the death star, AND produce hundreds of massive star destroyers and outfit millions of storm troopers. They could fit the death star into their budget with apparent ease.

Technology works. The U.S., at least, decided decades ago that we prefer to spend $$ rather than blood.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

The only concern is whether those $$$ are being wasted, or indeed, stolen. That can lead to wasted blood. And I think it has, not just in America's case. But damn, its an imperfect system.

[2DREZQ]

Rather than spend all that money, why not just grab a 20 km wide chunk of rock orbiting in the outer rim of the system containing the target planet, do a careful de-orbit on a vector to intercept the orbit of the planet...game over. Total cost: under 30 billion, even if you need to build a vessel from scratch to do it. Of course, it takes a couple years, but hey, it's cheap!

[ArmchairGeneral]

Rock throwing is almost certainly the long term future of warfare, ironically...good to see you around the WAB, btw. At this rate, in another decade you'll hit a thousand posts!

[bigross86]

Rather than spend all that money, why not just grab a 20 km wide chunk of rock orbiting in the outer rim of the system containing the target planet, do a careful de-orbit on a vector to intercept the orbit of the planet...game over. Total cost: under 30 billion, even if you need to build a vessel from scratch to do it. Of course, it takes a couple years, but hey, it's cheap!

<puts on nerd hat>

Your scenario doesn't work for a couple of reasons:

A) If you can actually launch a rock that big at the right angle to intercept, you can guarantee that planetary sensors will detect it long before it gets anywhere near the planet.

B) Most planets have defensive shields up, the same kind of shield protecting the Death Star that Han Solo and Leia had to take down.

C) Aside from the defensive shields, most planets usually have a couple capital ships in orbit around the planet, whether they be the triangular Imperial Star Destroyers you're used to seeing or ships of another variant, like the Mon Calamari Cruisers seen in the final battle of RotJ. These ships sport proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, turbolasers and turbolaser batteries, as well as tractor beams.

D) Even if the asteroid does manage to get through all of that, the planetary based defenses are more of the same. Enough turbolasers can take down a capital ship with shields that shoots back, they can definitely take down a rock.

Now, look at the alternative: A massive space station that (when completed) sported it's own shields, it's own power generators, fielded it's own army and pilots, and had a laser more powerful than anything out there. The Death Star could withstand a frontal assault by anything the Rebel Alliance had. They could throw capital ships, snubfighters and Ewoks at the Death Star, and the Death Star would just laugh at them. The Rebels defeated the Death Star both times using trickery, using single small ship attacks because they know going head to head against the Death Star meant death.

Even if a planet had enough shield capacity to withstand the first laser blast by the Death Star, the shields would most definitely collapse after the second shot, if not after the first, and then the planet is wide open for destruction.

Looking at it from another point of view, the Death Star was eventually meant to save money, since it could achieve with one shot what it would take numerous Imperial Star Destroyers to achieve with the normal planetary bombardment.