Worst ship design in sci-fi?

[Captain Seafort]

SSDs overkill? Compared to a certain 900km wide battlestation, or planet-encircling rings, they're like toothpicks.

[Mikey]

I've never really gotten into the EU, or spent as much time and brainpower on the technicalities of the SW universe as smarter folks such as Seafort or Blackstar, but in my limited knowledge I think I can safely extrapolate that "gargantuan, impressive, and really scary" is a pretty common Imperial design philosophy.

Besides - an SD (and by extrapolation, an SSD even more so) - is not only a purely "naval" warship, but also intended to field ground-pounding forces including armor units featuring AT-AT's.

[Captain Seafort]

It depends on which class you're talking about. The ubiquitous ISD isn't a dedicated combat ship in the manner of a modern destroyer - it's a counterinsurgency platform, and therefore needs fighters and and ground forces as force-projection tools. In this case the ground forces are most important - insurgents cannot be defeated by raw firepower, but by boots on the ground in support of a civilian administration, delivering "hearts and minds" support to the local population and picking off the trouble-makers one by one.

The Star Dreadnoughts of the Executor class are multi-purpose for a different reason - they're mobile force-projection platforms and command ships. They form the heart of roving task forces like Death Squadron - providing assault forces far heavier than a flotilla of destroyers could provide, but without the administrative problems of coordinating the fleet of transports required for a full planetary assault.

Other than these multi-role vessels, we have seen dedicated ship-to-ship warships, notably the Tector-class from RotJ, and the Allegiance-type fro Dark Empire. These ships, completely lacking the ventral hangers of the multi-role types, are likely usually concentrated in strategic reserves at Oversector and Galactic levels, and deployed as and when necessary to provide heavier fire support than the typical ISD.

[Mikey]

The ISD and Executor-class are the ones I was referring to when I mentioned that the huge size wasn't all overkill. Those force-projection capabilities require that sort of space, especially considering the huge disparity in size form ground-pounder to armor unit in the Imperial forces.

Tector-class: if that was the vessel on whcih Kenobi and Skywalker "rescued" Palpatine from Greivous, then it was overkill. If a ship can be landed, even in the most rudimentary fashion, with more than half of its volum sheared off, then it doesn't need to be that size.

Whatever this thing from "Dark Empire" is, you may as well be talking about yogurt recipes from 3rd century Mongolia for all I know.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

The classic star destroyer is a pretty good design, IMHO. It can bring a lot of its weapons to bear in multiple directions or have its 8 main heavy turbolasers and most/all of its other weapons firing forward for a devastating 'alpha strike'. It's a multi-purpose engine of death. As Seafort pointed out already... *Headdesk* Ah, well. Good enough point to be said twice.

Seafort, don't forget about the Eclipse from DE as well. That thing was even bigger than the Allegiance.

[Jim]

Star Destroyers, owing to their ridiculous size (especially the Super Star Destroyers), and the fact that the Control Room is stuck right on top of the ship, and the Shield generators are stuck right on top of the Control Room.

Despite the enormous crews, they literally seem to lose all control when the Bridge is destroyed.

Why are the shield generators on SD and SSD the same size?

Anyway...

Much the way O'Neil describes the Jaffa spear as a weapon of fear, I do not think the SD, SSD or Death Star were designed for function. The Empire saw itself as the Alpha and the Omega and didn't think anyone could ever stand up to them. They simply went with size and posturing. Putting the bridge on a raised dais like that is simply a way of showing no fear.

[Captain Seafort]

Tector-class: if that was the vessel on whcih Kenobi and Skywalker "rescued" Palpatine from Greivous, then it was overkill. If a ship can be landed, even in the most rudimentary fashion, with more than half of its volum sheared off, then it doesn't need to be that size.

No - the Tector appeared for a few seconds in Return of the Jedi. It's basically an ISD minus the main hanger. This would, obviously, prevent it from carrying fighters or ground troops as there would be no way of deploying them. This would, in turn, free up a huge amount of internal space that could be dedicated to power generation, weapons and the like.

Tector on Wookieepedia

Incidentally, I would hardly call what happened to the Invisible Hand "landed, even in the most rudimentary fashion" - it involved turning a fatal crash into a non-fatal crash using the abilities of two exceptionally strong Jedi (one the most powerful ever), with the possible (or even likely) assistance of the strongest Sith Lord in Galactic history.

Whatever this thing from "Dark Empire" is, you may as well be talking about yogurt recipes from 3rd century Mongolia for all I know.

Dark Empire is a comic series that came out in the early 90s - the Alliegance-type was a Super Star Destroyer that appeared in it. It's effectively the cruiser-variant of the Tector, around three miles long by my own, rough, measurements, and again lacking the big hanger of the ISD and ESD.

Allegiance-type on Wookieepedia

[Captain Seafort]

Why are the shield generators on SD and SSD the same size?

They aren't - those domes are contain sensors, not shield generators, although they do mount the bridge shield projectors.

Much the way O'Neil describes the Jaffa spear as a weapon of fear, I do not think the SD, SSD or Death Star were designed for function. The Empire saw itself as the Alpha and the Omega and didn't think anyone could ever stand up to them. They simply went with size and posturing. Putting the bridge on a raised dais like that is simply a way of showing no fear.

The staff weapon was described as a weapon of fear due to its poor ergonomics compared to real weapons (like the P90s). The Star Destroyer, OTOH, with its heavy armour, powerful weapons, and ability to concentrate maximum firepower on a single target is a true warship, not just an instrument of terror. Note that the basic configuration originated with the Republic's Victory-class SDs, built during a time of peace and prosperity under a (rather creaky) democracy. While their design certainly wasn't intended to put anyone at ease, the starships of the Galactic Empire instilled terror primarily through their capabilities, be that the ability to reduce a planetary surface to slag in the case of the ISD, or the mass-scattering ability of the Death Star.

[Mikey]

Thanks for the links and info, Seafort. And I agree that while some of the cosmetics on the Imperial capital ships may have intentionally tended toward evil- and painful-looking, certainly function was put first; it was more the ability of these ships to kill things, rather than their appearance, that produced the fear effect.

[kostmayer]

Well, thats my opinion well and truly changed

How much of this thought went into the design of the Star Destroyer, or other Star Wars ships when A New Hope was being made.

Was the Star Destroyer designed from the ground up with its specific applications in mind, or did Lucas just want a big ship that would look impressive chasing Leia's ship during the opening scene (have to admit, that looked cool)

[Jim]

Jimbo found some new background pictures... Since my computer deletes them every few hours...

[Sionnach Glic]

Was the Star Destroyer designed from the ground up with its specific applications in mind, or did Lucas just want a big ship that would look impressive chasing Leia's ship during the opening scene (have to admit, that looked cool)

At a guess, I'd say he just wanted something impresive looking, that coincidently happened to have a good design.

[Jordanis]

Yes, I think the prequels made it clear that what Lucas was most of all was lucky

Ridgeline gun placement like on the ISD is pretty much the best possible arrangement for full three-dimensional ranges of fire. Of course, the most efficient would be a double-tetrahedron or something, but that looks like crap.

From an aesthetic design standpoint, there's something about flying bridges like the ISD's. It's because we're used to wet-navy ships so much that we look for the high point where the bridge is at--every caricature of a ship ever has the high bridge windows. It's part of the modern cultural imagery, just like an apple looks most apple-y when red.

[Mikey]

And why space-borne fighters are usually shown with wings...

[Jordanis]

And why space-borne fighters are usually shown with wings...

Yup. As a ship designer, I can never quite bring myself to get away from it.