Air Force Officer Says Death Star Was a Bad Investment

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
Huh and i thought Unicron would have been a great investment considering that Unicron would eat or smash planets to tiny little pieces of space dust.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
You dont need to be a Sith lord to operate it. its not like Palpitine or Vader just puts on a CEREBRO helmet and mind powers the thing like Professor Xavier. Its all the other workers who operate it, and they're just loyal to Palpitine cause they're brainwashed from conception to be.

Also, that cost is out the window when you have large sections of a GALAXY under your control, rather then just one planet. You can just resource rape a planet and built an army of slaves from the local poulation.

besides, youre an emperor with the power to shoot lightning out of your hands, a sword that cuts through nearly anything, mental abilities and control beyond the feasible minds of such lowly and measly creatures as us non force taught humans. And thats not even getting to your 6 foot+ android who can do the same (except the lightning) and force choke the shit out of someone, and your personal death army that you can mass produce at rapid rate and just sweep across lands like the plague. Plus you have full control over the governemnt. You write the books of what will and wont work, and if someone dares disagree you destroy them.
 

BlackStar42

New member
Jan 23, 2010
1,226
0
0
Classic misreading of Machiavelli. He got to the point of being hated instead of feared. Should have put the money into the spy network and arrested/executed all the Rebels within a few years.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,147
3,890
118
SirBryghtside said:
I just did the maths, and it comes to a millionth :p

The original death star was, according to Google, 120 km in Diameter. That means the volume is 904,778 km[sup]3[/sup]. Star Destroyers are, in comparison, around 0.8 km[sup]3[/sup] - obtained by multiplying 1.6*1*0.5. that means you can fit around 1,130,972 Star Destroyers into the Death Star.

...I'm never going to get that time back...
Hey? I thought it was moon sized? Ah, well, a "mere" 120km across makes more sense, but is still really stupid.
 

Oilerfan92

New member
Mar 5, 2010
483
0
0
Perhaps the death stars would've been better if they didn't have "shoot here and BOOM!!!" points.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Shoggoth2588 said:
I think The Death Star would be a much more practical investment if it was used as a deep-space exploration vessel instead of a mobile planet-destroying monstrosity.

I mean, think about it. It can travel through the Galaxy, holding years worth of rations and enough people to populate any suitable planet while the Deathstar helpfully orbits said planet to keep an eye on things. Man can travel pretty freely from Earth to the Moon so taking a moon-sized space station and sending it to any given Earth-like planet would be a pretty safe bet I'd think. You know, once we can get our own version of FTL travel or, finish our own version of the Hyper-Drive.

It would still be expensive as hell but using the station as an exploration vessel could potentially pay off in a HUGE way.
Um...no. It might be small for a moon, but unbelievably huge compared to a spaceship. Even the impractically large Super Star Destroyer would be less than a trillionth its size. A trillion super Star Destroyers (ok, i'd go for regular star destroyers, and they are too big themselves) would be a much better investment than one big ship.

Though, why bother building one? Why not just build the engines on an existing moon and fly it around if you want?
Why bother? Aliens already did that to Mars and Mercury.

If they have more reports like this, I might have to join the army. You just know lightsabers are around the corner. And I want one. I don't care if it would be useless in a gun fight.
 

AlphaEcho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
228
0
0
Shoggoth2588 said:
I think The Death Star would be a much more practical investment if it was used as a deep-space exploration vessel instead of a mobile planet-destroying monstrosity.

I mean, think about it. It can travel through the Galaxy, holding years worth of rations and enough people to populate any suitable planet while the Deathstar helpfully orbits said planet to keep an eye on things. Man can travel pretty freely from Earth to the Moon so taking a moon-sized space station and sending it to any given Earth-like planet would be a pretty safe bet I'd think. You know, once we can get our own version of FTL travel or, finish our own version of the Hyper-Drive.

It would still be expensive as hell but using the station as an exploration vessel could potentially pay off in a HUGE way.
Er... what happens when you add a random moon to a planet again?

Que shoddy 2012 movie.
 

Alphavillain

New member
Jan 19, 2008
965
0
0
The Death Star a bad investment? Sorry to get all serious, but try the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the definition of "bad investment". $1.47TR and counting.
 

DaRigger420

New member
Jun 26, 2010
64
0
0
YOu have to think, the Death Star, while itself moon-sized, Does not have the equivalent mass of a similarly sized rock due to its being mostly hollow. Up to 60% of the interior spaces would be empty and or quickly emptied upon reaching a destination. If they were really that concerned they could also simply park it a bit further out as they would not have to worry about loss of orbit like any other unpowered orbital body.
 

TheRocketeer

Intolerable Bore
Dec 24, 2009
670
0
21
As an Airman, I've got to say that this really puts my mind at ease. My Squadron Commander is a vengeful and powerful telekinetic, and there have been concerns in the past about his unhindered propensity for strangling those who question him. My unit is greatly relieved by suggestions of a move to more convential non-judicial punishment.

The army of Wookiee slaves still concerns me, mainly because I know that funding just had to be cut from somewhere else, but the ongoing drawdown and the tone of this report seem to assuage my fears that it was for the completion of some manner of moon-scale doomsday fortress, especially since the scuttlebutt indicates that it is already "fully operational," and it seems like if we had the kind of funding to just keep adding on, it would be better spent addressing any ludicrous points of failure it may or may not have.
 

awatkins

New member
Oct 17, 2008
91
0
0
I dont like the ppl who dismiss the Death Star on the 'fact' that it has an 'obvious' weak point. Just like the first time you tried to look at a 3D picture ( the ones where you need to look past the picture to SEE the picture) it must have took some poor bastard weeks pouring over schematic diagrams looking for that now obvious week spot. Dont down-play his hard work you assholes.
On a side note, could the Death Star use it's own gravity as a weapon some how?
I think the easy answer would be to attract the tides of a planet to flood the land masses.
More creativly the Death Star might be able to caox the planets' own moon into a degraded orbit so eventually it will collide with the planet.
More covertly however, the Death Star could sit millions of kilometer out in space and re-direct meteors and asteroids towards a planet. It would be all like armaggedon without Bruce Willace and that sad ending.... :(
 

StarCecil

New member
Feb 28, 2010
503
0
0
BabySinclair said:
C-130, B-52, A-10. Really old planes that are still used because the bloody work. New technology is good, but should be tested and proven small scale before ramping up production (F22/35)
To be fair, the F-22 is pretty much the God of airplanes.

I'm surprised he didn't mention just how inefficient the thing ultimately is at what it's supposed to do. If you blow up a planet, how is anyone supposed to just fall in line, knowing that you can and will destroy them utterly? Seems like the exact thing that would fuel the rebellion.
 

Bluntman1138

New member
Aug 12, 2011
177
0
0
This is what gets me.

Is there not better things to do in the Air Force, than write up a report about the Death Star and Droids. We have 2 wars going on right now, there HAS to be something better for them to do with their time. It is MY TAX DOLLARS being spent here at the very minimum.

And of course the ONE thing this person forgot to realize. If the Force didnt exist, then the Death Star would have been the DOMINANT force in the Galaxy. Of course, i guess this Airman believes the Force IS REAL, and thus makes a Death Star type battle station a crappy investment.
 

deshorty

New member
Dec 30, 2010
220
0
0
Shoggoth2588 said:
I think The Death Star would be a much more practical investment if it was used as a deep-space exploration vessel instead of a mobile planet-destroying monstrosity.

I mean, think about it. It can travel through the Galaxy, holding years worth of rations and enough people to populate any suitable planet while the Deathstar helpfully orbits said planet to keep an eye on things. Man can travel pretty freely from Earth to the Moon so taking a moon-sized space station and sending it to any given Earth-like planet would be a pretty safe bet I'd think. You know, once we can get our own version of FTL travel or, finish our own version of the Hyper-Drive.

It would still be expensive as hell but using the station as an exploration vessel could potentially pay off in a HUGE way.
Yeah true, it would be kinda like that movie 'Titan AD'. Problem is, we would HAVE to name the ships "Death Stars". And that just gives the wrong impression.