back to article Death Stars are a waste of time – here's the best way to take over the galaxy

Mild spoiler alert: This article includes minor details of the plot of Star Wars: The Force Awakens The Star Wars films raise lots of pressing questions. “Why is there sound in space?” “How did George Lucas lose his way?” And, of course, “Did Han shoot first?” (that’s an easy one). There are innumerable variants on the “How …

Silver badge

Recursive self replication..

Sounds awfully like biology to me..

But as it's making a weapon maybe it's called Terror-Forming

Coat Please

30
1
Silver badge

An interesting idea

But the genetic predisposition humanity has to get a rush over whatever is bigger than whatever else is being compared means that the most practical means is rarely considered if there is an impractical one that makes a bigger boom.

6
0

Re: An interesting idea

If everyone else thinks that way then I'm going to win, because I'll choose the more efficient path over the more ostentatious path every time.

0
0
Thumb Down

All that...

... and not a mention of Von Neumann machines or Berserkers?

20
0
Silver badge

Re: All that...

And no mention of a Nicoll-Dyson Laser

1
0
Silver badge

Re: All that...

Or "The Brick Moon", an early Victorian "death star"?

(Really, you could fill an encyclopedia with prior references.)

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: All that...

Nor the Greenflies...

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: All that...

Nor the xenocidical machines from Forge of God, whatever they are (and we never see them either).

2
0
Silver badge

Re: All that...

...or E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensmen using planets to smash other planets. Or the Red Dwarf episode where Lister does that, with erasing a timeline in the process as well.

2
0

Ships building ships

Pretty much the way that the large Culture ships produce other ships/drones/knife missiles for all occasions. ((Ian M Banks books for those who're thinking "What the hell is he talking about). I've never understood why you would want to destroy perfectly inhabitable planets though. If I was Emperor I would want to add them to my ever-expanding domains, BWAHAHAHA!

18
0
Silver badge

Re: Ships building ships

And Banks alludes to what can happen if those self-repair mechanisms go wrong (like cancer) - resulting in pesky swarms of tiny machines that would if left unchecked turn all available matter into replicas of themselves. The culture assign some ships to 'pest control' duties.

As others have noted, he didn't originate the concept.

In Star Wars, people live on planets. In the Culture books, the matter of a planet would support far more life if it were re-arranged into a ring-shaped Orbital habitat.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: Ships building ships

"ring-shaped Orbital habitat", aka a Ringworld.

Not completely sure whether Larry Niven originated it, but it was derived from the idea of a Dyson Sphere. There's a write-up of the idea in the back of the original book, and some clarifications of the maths in the later books. Read them.

Niven and Jerry Pournelle between them wrote innovative fiction about so many interesting ideas, like archologies, mono-molecular filaments, system-wide civilisations without effective intersteller travel, planetary occupation etc. I did not get the idea of integral trees, though.

Forward the Hindmost!

22
0
Silver badge

@Peter Gathercole Re: Ships building ships - re. Ringworld

The Culture orbital habitats didn't encircle their star, as Larry Niven's Ringworld did. They were 'small' bands that orbited a star and were slightly tilted out of the plane of orbit and themselves rotated with a one 'day' period so that the part of the band nearest the star didn't shade the other side of the band, thus simulating a day/night cycle.

9
0
Silver badge

Re: Ships building ships

I've read 'em. I still choose the 'Orbital' variant of the concept because the topic was a reason to rearrange the mass of a planet.

A Ringworld is roughly described by the orbit of the Earth, and provides about 300 million times the habitable surface area.

An Orbital doesn't encircle a sun, and provides around a 100 times the habitable surface of the planet whilst using less matter.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Dyson Sphere

Is the Dyson Sphere the really powerful, bagless vacuum of space?

17
0

Re: Dyson Sphere

Beat me to it, have an upvote. But I would add that the sphere makes it a lot more maneuverable.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: @Feank Ly. Ships building ships - re. Ringworld

Ah. Thanks.

I keep meaning to read The Culture series. Still not got round to it.

0
0
Silver badge

Are we talking about...

...Self Hemogenizing Swarms, as Iain M. Banks dubbed them? He also used the word 'Smatter' (Smart Matter, IIRC). Other people have used the terms 'Grey Goo', or 'Von Neumann Machines'.

I confess, I didn't read the article - I haven't seen the Force Awakens movie yet, and was scared off by the spoiler warning.

To others who haven't seen the movie, you should avoid Wired.com, since they have spoilers in their headlines.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: Are we talking about...

That was one type of swarm, intelligent, aggressive lifeforms could also be considered a self hegemonizing swarm. To mix fictions, the Daleks and Cybermen would be such swarms.

Obviously, whichever form it took, one would want to swat it ASAP.

0
0

There's easier ways to destroy a planet

Populate it.

29
1
Silver badge

Re: There's easier ways to destroy a planet

too right - look what happened to Venus

9
0

@Tromos - Re: There's easier ways to destroy a planet

Populating (or over-populating or even going for all-out nuclear war) won't destroy a planet. Sure, it'll majorly fuck up the ecosystem, but the big ball of rock will still be there.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: There's easier ways to destroy a planet

Look, I've apologized for the nanotech lab accident over and over again, let off it already!

0
0
Silver badge

Confused

It seems the author has confused "taking over a planet/system" with "utterly destroying a planet/system".

It's kind of difficult to take something over if there's nothing left to take over because it has all been turned into missiles, jus sayin...

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Confused

You then instruct the 'missiles' to arrange themselves into a habitat of the shape and location of your choosing. That is, of course, if the 'command and control' systems haven't been borked in a copying error (mutation) over thousands of generations.

2
0

Obligatory XKCD

https://xkcd.com/865/

21
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Art Imitating Parody

With all of the bits that Abrams threw in as nods to past Star Wars movies, did anyone else catch that Starkiller Base was just a bigger, better Mega Maid?

IT connection? Examples of single point of failure being a Bad Thing in Death Star and Starkiller Base. Mission critical services should have redundancy designed in.

10
0

Re: Art Imitating Parody

Missed that reference entirely. In what way do you mean exactly, and how more so than the original Death Star = MegaMaid reference?

0
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Re: Art Imitating Parody

I hate to explain the joke as it typically ruins it, but in Space Balls MegaMaid used a giant vacuum cleaner to suck up all the atmosphere from Druidia which is pretty much how in SW-TFA Starkiller Base charged up from the nearest star. Pretty sly and perhaps not intentional, but I thought it was funny just the same.

10
0

Re: Art Imitating Parody

Ah right. I kinda get it. I suspect not intentional at all, given how tenuous it is tbh.

I love SpaceBalls (the film, the colouring book, the lunchbox, the flamethower and - my personal favourite - the doll. Isn't he adorable?) but I hadn't thought of that possible back-link in any way.

--++ SPOILERS ++--

Personally, I think that JJ was trying to avoid as much nerd-rage as possible by showing a potential power source of being able to generate the energy required to overcome the binding energy of not just 1 but 5No. Earth-a-like planets in one go. I was sat with the kind of squirming in my seat usually reserved for when i see IP addresses with values in the 7 and 8 hundred ranges when the first shots were fired, thinking "How on earth is that laser beam travelling interstellar distances to destroy planets in remote star systems? Surely the people looking at the sky would just see practically static beams?" when the explanation tipped up that The First Order had managed to construct a hyper-lightspeed weapon system. At that point, the nerd rage subsided. They haven't explained how it worked, but they'd clearly given it sufficient thought to realise the problems and handwaviumed it away.

Good enough for me, given we're talking about a universe with hyperspeed, all-powerful space wizards, laser-plasma swords, moon-sized artificial space stations and technological ability to hollow out a planet at turn it into a star-slurping supergun.

11
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Art Imitating Parody

Upvoted for "handwaviumed". Freakin' brilliant! No egg-nog icon, hope you can make do with a pint.

Oh, and merry x-mas, everyone.

1
0
Silver badge

According to some kind of silly Star Wars fanfiction I've seen, your auto-replicating robots are no match for an army of Gungans led by a stupid general.

3
0
Silver badge

Personally I subscribe to the Jar Jar is a sith lord theory: https://youtu.be/8yy3q9f84EA

5
0
Anonymous Coward

The best retcon in the universe!

1
0

Woah!!

Just watched the link.

It really does make a Hell of a lot of sense. And all the pieces fit ....

Scary. Very scary.

0
0
Silver badge

"Personally I subscribe to the Jar Jar is a sith lord theory: https://youtu.be/8yy3q9f84EA"

Uh, huh. And Blackadder is actually the king.

The story style mirrors where good and evil character come from the same village, where the evil character thanks the good character for helping him acquire power.

Meanwhile, the good character was only bringing all of the bad guys who support evil character out into the open, so that all of the evil gets stamped out at once.

I'm guessing you've never studied the legends referenced in the series.

0
0
Silver badge

Lexx

The tongue in cheek SF TV series, had a few nice illustrations of the concept

12
0

Suggested Viewing

Probably not the first version but check out the Replicators in Stargate SG1. Small building blocks that can join together to form more complex structures, stripping planets of resources as they go. Probably at their most scary as swarms of insectoids/arachnids. Thank heaven for primitive projectile waepons

12
0
LDS
Silver badge

I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

... habitable planets may be a scarce resource, better to clean it up, and then give it to your supporters, if you're the evil kind. Moreover destroying a planet may destabilze a whole planetary system - debris could heavily impact other planets (maybe some where your supporters live...), and their orbits could also be impacted, depending on the system configuration. Any moon will also go loose...

As usual, there is a lot of fiction and just a little science in Star Wars - and nobody will ever talk about small spaceships that looks to be able to have no inertia in space despite their speed, and are able to change direction suddendly, without killing their pilot or breaking apart? And if they have any system to counter those forces, why they still banks like planes when turning - who banks exactly because of those forces (but in an atmosphere)?

SW is just like King Arthur, Lancelot and Excalibur - turn off your brain and enjoy the magic - as long as the plot is decent (and the director is not Jar Jar Adams).

7
0
Silver badge

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

The more destruction the better. It's about a vulgar display of power to terrify everyone into submission. If the resource is scarce, so much the better, it shows that you don't care how valuable the target is because you're so badass you don't need it.

13
0
Mushroom

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

It's all a matter of scale. On the scale of star wars blowing up a planet isn't any more a waste of resources than nuking a city is on a single planet. That's not a good thing, but it's still been done in a war situation.

3
0

"The more destruction the better. It's about a vulgar display of power"

Agreed.

I refer you to the Sputnik program, Tsar Bomba, and other Earth-bound vulgar displays of power.

0
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

You need it, and that's why most badass in those movies look childish. One of the best way to acquire and ensure loyalty from supporters is to give 'em your enemies resources. Most people are moved by greed, not some sort of idealism.

Romans got better armies giving away conquered lands to their soldiers, than pouring salt over Carthage ruins.

Firing at any planet you like may also make your supporters unsure if they're next in the list for any reason, and they will end to overthrow you just in case...

4
1
LDS
Silver badge

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

You can rebuild a city (although radioactivity is a nuisance) - rebuilding a planet is more difficult, unless you're from Magrathea.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

"The more destruction the better. It's about a vulgar display of power to terrify everyone into submission."

Have your cake and eat it too; The Genesis Bomb from Star Trek's "The Wrath Of Kahn". Obliterate an entire planet's population in seconds, leaving a lush, inhabitable world behind ready for settlers.

It had the Klingons totally freaking out at that possibility.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

"It's about a vulgar display of power to terrify everyone into submission."

Exactly. It's a willy waving exercise. Just look at every arms race in our own history.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I never understood this crazy about breaking planet apart...

Have your cake and eat it too; The Genesis Bomb from Star Trek's "The Wrath Of Kahn". Obliterate an entire planet's population in seconds, leaving a lush, inhabitable world behind ready for settlers.

"Greenpeace through superior firepower"

8
0
Anonymous Coward

At your next sentient AI..

.. (or overlord, take your pick), I thank you for all the lovely suggestions.

No, HE won't be back, but I will.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

My concern is

if you wanted to build such a massive base/ringworld etc the scale of the resources neded would require the mining, processing and refining of multiple planets/asteroid belt to achieve the necessary number of cubic kilometers of material, even if the local system was made 80% usable material and 20% waste (enough to build a new planet I would suggest)

I sould imagine the self replicating robot army would simply be mining refining and transporting never mind building the new base/habitat assuming unlimited solar/nuclear type energy availability.

This new structure would presumably also generate its own gravity and magnetic field so surely the eary/innermost section would have to be either nearly hollow or would pull in and collapse with the mass of the outer layers. A ringworld would probably swivel and sway like a suspension bridge in the wind too based on the heating/cooling of day/night and routine collision avoidance/orbital adjustment.

Nice easy questions for the enthusiastic scientists out there...!

0
0

Ascribing motives to people

I am wondering if perhaps we are ascribing motives to people that do not match their (still fictional) aims? What if the Sith just want to speed up the process of getting to the heat death of the Universe, in a similar way that some religious sects are eagerly awaiting the end of life on Earth?

If the End Goal is indeed to rule over everybody, perhaps the easiest way to get there is for there to be fewer bodies, too.

8
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017