Timeline for What is the maximum effective range of the Death Star's Superlaser?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2020 at 4:14 | history | edited | DavidW | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix spelling of Wookieepedia
|
| Jan 7, 2016 at 21:24 | comment | added | orion | Let's assume that conservation of energy still holds. Taking the power above (a quite useless piece of data, energy of a pulse is what we need), assuming no focusing at all (a point source, losing most of energy into space), to vaporize 1m of water over the entire planet in one millisecond (if we had joules, we wouldn't have to assume duration), you'd need to be 0.01AU away. That's without any focusing. With beam width of 1° (still worse than laser pointer), it's about 3AU. That's for vaporising everything that moves on the surface. | |
| Oct 28, 2015 at 14:42 | history | edited | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2015 at 17:24 | history | edited | Null♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed link and exponent
|
| Jul 11, 2012 at 0:03 | comment | added | aramis | I suspect Wookiepedia's original source was the WEG SWRPG supplement Death Star Technical Companion. | |
| Jul 10, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | Chad | @Mario You do not need to be accurate with an antimatter beam get it near and the natural attraction towards matter should correct. You do not need to hit a specific city with a planet buster either. Just hit it somewhere. | |
| Jul 10, 2012 at 12:49 | comment | added | Chad | @vsz - I know this is exotic matter but... antimatter has a strong attraction towards matter. So assuming this exotic matter has similar properties it is not just the particles directly in the path but any near enough to be affected. In addition we are talking hundreds of millions of km not thousands | |
| Jul 10, 2012 at 7:41 | comment | added | Mario | You misunderstood me. The aiming (the math part) is possible, sure. But the further your target is away, the smaller the margins for the aiming are. At some point you might need such a precise orientation, that you're simply no longer able to guarantee it due to thrusters or whatever not being precise enough. Imaging shooting at a targeting range - at 3 ft, aiming in the approximate direction is more than enough - but at 300 ft you better have very steady aiming and stuff. | |
| Jul 10, 2012 at 4:56 | comment | added | vsz | @Mario: that aiming, and the predicting of the orbit of a planet are possible even today, at least across a few AU or maybe more. | |
| Jul 10, 2012 at 4:55 | comment | added | vsz | @Chad: I know, this is why I wrote "at least not at such a small distance". Over a few hundred thousand km it's insignificant. If we are talking about light-years, yes. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 21:08 | comment | added | Mario | Also consider it getting harder to hit targets further away, as you'll have to include their trajectory as well as your own. At some distance your aiming might simply be not good enough anymore to ensure a hit at all (it might take some time to do the calculations, but you have to aim properly as well). | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 19:23 | comment | added | Chad | @vzz - Contrary to popular belief space is not empty just sparse. There is lots of dust, debris, and hydrogen it is just so diffuse as to seem empty. But over long distances those little particles would siphon off significant power. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 19:17 | comment | added | vsz | Even if it's a particle beam, there is no friction in space (at least not at such a small distance). As even a billionth of that energy is devastating, this should not limit the range that much. Or, maybe it starts "leaking" into Hyperspace, that's the cause of such a short range? | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 19:00 | comment | added | Chad | @vsz because it is not a lazer despite what it is called. It is a exotic matter beam... I am not sure how that compares to antimatter but based on its output I am guessing favorably on the side of destructive power. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 18:57 | comment | added | vsz | Strange, that's less than 3 AU. Well, it's still much more than the range it was used in the movies (less than 0.01 AU). | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 18:38 | history | answered | Chad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |