Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USAF Lt Col writes paper on feasibility of Death Star

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    USAF Lt Col writes paper on feasibility of Death Star

    http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Do...Oct11/Ward.pdf

    Don’t Come to the Dark Side
    Acquisition Lessons from a Galaxy Far, Far Away

    Lt. Col. Dan Ward, USA

    After watching the climactic battle scene in Return of the Jedi for the first time, my 8-yearold daughter said, “They shouldn’t build those Death Stars anymore. They keep getting blown up.” She may be a little short for a stormtrooper, but the kid’s got a point.

    Yes, the Empire should stop building Death Stars. It turns out the DoD shouldn’t build them either, metaphorically speaking. What sort of system fits into this category? I’ll resist the urge to give specific examples and instead will simply point out that any enormous project that is brain-meltingly complex, ravenously consumes resources, and aims to deliver an Undefeatable Ultimate Weapon is well on its way to becoming a Death Star, and that’s not a good thing.

    Why are Death Stars a bad idea? The main objections fit into two categories: operational and programmatic. The operational shortcomings of the Empire’s doomed battlestations are well known and widely mocked. Their programmatic shortcomings are less well known but worth considering. We’ll take a look at both categories.

    Death Star Operational Assessment
    Introduced in Episode IV, A New Hope, the Death Star makes an impressive debut when it vaporizes the planet Alderaan—the one and only time it fires its main weapon. Shortly thereafter, the entire station, with 1.2 million people on board, is destroyed by a single shot fired by a half-trained Jedi. That’s what we call a critical vulnerability, and it’s the subject of relentless fan disdain. The second Death Star’s performance in combat was even less impressive. Despite being much larger than the original one, it was dispatched by the rebels before firing its planet busting laser even once. So much for being “fully operational.”

    To be sure, the Death Star is primarily a weapon of intimidation rather than something to be used all willy-nilly. Even the Evil Empire didn’t want to demolish more than a handful of planets. So the fact that the Death Star only ever fired one shot may not be that big of a deal. However, the fact that the stations kept getting blown up is a big deal indeed. It’s hard to be intimidating if you’re a smoking cloud of debris.

    One might wonder how such an ostensibly powerful weapon could have such a consistently poor track record and such a gaping weakness. Despite the opinion of certain critics, these shortcomings are not a cheap plot device by a lazy writer. In fact, the Death Star’s combination of inadequacy and vulnerability may be the second-most realistic aspect of the entire saga.

    Build Them, Do Not
    From a design perspective, a system as enormously complex as a Death Star is more than any program manager or senior architect can handle, no matter how high their midi-chlorian count is. There is bound to be an overlooked exhaust vent or two that leads directly to the reactor core. That is just the sort of vulnerability an asymmetric opponent can exploit. In my professional engineering judgment, a flaw of this type was inevitable. As C-3PO would say, the possibility of building such a large and complex system without overlooking something critical is approximately 3,720 to 1! The resulting error may not be as dramatic as George Lucas envisioned, but even a malfunction in the life support system or navigation software can be pretty exciting in its own way.

    Death Star Programmatics
    The Death Star’s lackluster contribution to the fight is reason enough not to build one, but serious problems emerged long before it was declared operational. In Return of the Jedi, viewers gain a fascinating insight into the programmatics of Empire acquisitions. In the single most realistic scene in the whole double-trilogy, Darth Vader complains that the second Death Star construction project is … behind schedule. In fact, much of the drama in Episode VI revolves around this delay.

    Consider the implications of pop culture’s most notorious schedule overrun. In the Star Wars universe, robots are self-aware, every ship has its own gravity, Jedi Knights use the Force, tiny green Muppets are formidable warriors and a piece of junk like the Millennium Falcon can make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. But even the florid imagination of George Lucas could not envision a project like the Death Star coming in on time, on budget. He knew it would take a Jedi mind trick beyond the skill of Master Yoda to make an audience suspend that much disbelief.

    Even worse, it turns out getting a moon-sized project back on track requires the personal presence of a Sith Lord. Let me assure you, if your project’s success depends on hiring someone whose first name is Darth, you’ve got a problem. Not just because Sith Lords are make-believe, but also because they’re evil.

    I’ve Got A Bad Feeling About This
    If you count the 14 hours I spent rewatching all six movies, I did way more research for this article than any other project in recent memory. During the phase of research that did not involve popcorn, I was surprised to discover several blogs and published articles praising Darth Vader for his programmatic prowess.

    You’d think it would go without saying that Vader is not a great example of anything other than redemption. From the time he puts on that black helmet until his (spoiler alert!) heart-warming death scene, he’s a complete baddie. And yet, it turns out many fans have drawn unfortunate lessons from this character.

    An article in Project Magazine titled “If His Day Rate Is Reasonable, Get Darth Vader” commended Vader’s ability to turn around an ailing project. Another program management professional wistfully wrote, “If only most project managers could have the presence and command the respect that Darth Vader did…” Um, have you seen these films? I don’t think we really want PMs to walk around in capes and black armor. Sure, I’ve known people who thought they were on par with Vader, but I assure you, his path is not one we should follow. I’m pretty sure it leads to suffering.

    A few writers praised Vader’s strong communication skills, pointing out that he conscientiously “ensured the Emperor was kept up-to-date with regular progress reports.” In a similar vein, I’m told Mussolini kept the trains running on time. Even if that were true (and it’s not), it doesn’t make him a good role model.

    More than one writer inexplicably complimented Vader’s leadership style, conveniently overlooking his use of telekinetic strangulation as a primary motivational approach. One misguided soul described Vader as “an authoritative figure who commanded respect.” A more accurate description might be “a murderous tyrant who commanded obedience.” There’s a difference.

    Happily, a blog commenter with the unlikely nom de net of Luke had the wisdom to point out, “All projects developed by Dark Lords will end up like the Death Stars.” By that I presume he meant “glowing fields of space junk,” but it’s possible he also meant “over budget, behind schedule and blown-up before Act II.” Online Luke is probably right: Dark Lords build Death Stars. I suspect the inverse is also true—building Death Stars makes program managers end up like Dark Lords. If so, that’s one more reason not to do it.

    A Jedi Craves Not These Things
    Now, the commentaries I quoted were surely at least partially tongue-in-cheek. However, there seemed to be a sincere underlying belief in many cases that a) the Death Stars were awesome engineering projects and b) Darth Vader was a good leader who got stuff done. I can excuse enthusiastic fanboys and fangirls for holding these beliefs, but as professional military technologists, we know better.

    Consider the fact that even the Empire, with all its vast resources and the full power of the Dark Side, could only build one Death Star at a time. Building two at once was clearly more than it could handle. This reminds me of Norm Augustine’s famous prediction that at some point, the entire DoD budget would purchase just one aircraft for all the Services to share. The Empire apparently arrived at this singularity long, long ago. I’m not convinced this achievement represented real progress.

    The truth is, Death Stars are about as practical as a metal bikini. Sure, they look cool, but they aren’t very sensible. Specifically, Death Stars can’t possibly be built on time or on budget, require pathological leadership styles and, as we’ve noted, keep getting blown up. Also, nobody can build enough of them to make a real difference in the field.

    The bottom line: Death Stars are unaffordable. Whether we’re talking about a fictional galaxy far, far away or the all too real conditions here on Planet Earth, a Death Star program will cost more than it is worth. The investment on this scale is unsustainable and is completely lost when a wamp-rat-hunting farmboy takes a lucky shot. When one station represents the entire fleet (or even 5 percent of the fleet), we’ve put too many eggs in that basket and are well on our way to failing someone for the last time.

    The answer isn’t to build more, partly because we can’t and partly because the underlying concept is so critically flawed. Instead of building Death Stars, we should imitate the most successful technology in the saga: R2-D2.

    The Droids We’re Looking For
    My extensive research uncovered an interview where George Lucas identified R2-D2 as “the hero of the whole thing.” I found this comment startling at first, because in all my boyhood hours of playing Star Wars, nobody ever wanted to be an astromech droid. We all wanted to be Luke. And yet, a closer look at the films shows Artoo has an impressive tendency to save the day, in scene after scene. Whether it’s repairing the Millennium Falcon’s hyperdrive, destroying a pair of Super Battle Droids, conveying a secret message to old Ben Kenobi or delivering Luke’s light saber at the critical moment on Jabba’s Sail Barge, he’s always got a trick up his proverbial sleeve.

    When a young Anakin snuck Padme off Coruscant and reassured her by saying “Don’t worry, we have Artoo with us,” he was not being ironic. No other character, biological or mechanical, is quite so dependable. If I was assaulting a Death Star in an X-wing fighter, you bet I’d want a good R2 unit on board.
    "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

    #2
    Our Only Hope
    Yes, there are plenty of flaws in the Star Wars films—I’m looking at you, Jar Jar Binks—but casting R2-D2 as the hero isn’t one of them. Just as the Death Stars’ vulnerability and inadequacy are perfectly realistic, the superior operational performance of a simple droid corresponds to real-life experience. Time and again, war-winning weapons tend to be simple, inexpensive and small.

    An astromech droid’s simplicity makes it reliable, and its long history of use in battle makes it robust and widely useful. Consider Artoo’s restrained design. He doesn’t have fancy language processors; beeps and squeaks suffice. He doesn’t have arms or even a face. Artoo is pure function. He has no unnecessary features, no superfluous parts. He’s not even very tall, proving once again Yoda’s dictum that size matters not.

    Consider this: A Death Star is an Empire weapon that aims to intimidate opponents into submission. Droids are Republic technology. They don’t intimidate anyone. Instead, they earn their keep by being useful and practical. Droids are about finesse, while Death Stars are about brute force. And given the current world situation, finesse is clearly what we need.

    Droids aren’t expensive; their requirements aren’t overstated. One might argue that a droid can’t do what a Death Star does, but then again, the Death Stars didn’t do very much when all was said and done. In the final accounting, a droid like Artoo does more than it was designed to do, while a Death Star ends up doing less. Much less.

    If you want to keep your limbs intact, let the Wookiee win. And if you want to develop and deliver effective weapon systems, build droids instead of Death Stars. The key is exercising design restraint, focusing our requirements on the essential requirements rather than the endless list of desirements, living within our budget and resisting the temptation to extend the schedule. Sure, it’s hard to tell the Emperor no when he insists on building yet another Death Star, but since the Force is imaginary, chances are good you won’t get zapped with lightning for suggesting an alternative approach.

    There are all sorts of ways to simplify a design, to reduce a set of requirements to the bare minimum, to make sure we build what we can afford. Don’t believe such a thing can be done? That is why you fail. But those who do believe will find the system they built just might be “the hero of the whole thing.”

    Ward is a branch chief in the Science, Technology and Engineering Directorate, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQRT) . He holds degrees in systems engineering, electrical engineering, and engineering management. He is Level III certified in SPRDE, Level III in PM, and Level I in T&E and IT.
    "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

    Comment


      #3
      More R2s? I wholeheartedly approve of this idea. Excellent article.

      Comment


        #4
        Hmmm

        While I agree with most of this article, I think the author is missing the entire point of a "death star" It's not so much about being "fuctional" as it is for pure fear/terror purposes. Consider for a moment how much time, money and research has been put into the development and refinement of the nuclear bomb/missile delivery VS how many times it has been actually used in a "warfare" environment??

        "On Paper", the suncrusher is a far superior weapon to the death star by virtue of it's particular misslile system and armor, yet a "little ship" like the suncrusher will not evoke the same psycological respose as a "death star" and that is what the Death Star was all about, a purely physical/psycological way to "show force".

        As to Mr Vader,he said it all in ep 4:
        "Don't be to proud of this technological terror you have constructed, the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force"

        If you look at that as being more than the words, he says it all, Being able to control the thoughts and minds of your enemies is a far FAR more effective and useful weapon than being able to wipe them out at will.
        sigpic
        ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
        A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
        The truth isn't the truth

        Comment


          #5
          Damn. That is succint and to the point, and hits home. I think that this should be a lesson for all prospective engineers.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post
            While I agree with most of this article, I think the author is missing the entire point of a "death star" It's not so much about being "fuctional" as it is for pure fear/terror purposes. Consider for a moment how much time, money and research has been put into the development and refinement of the nuclear bomb/missile delivery VS how many times it has been actually used in a "warfare" environment??
            He makes that point right at the start. It's supposed to be intimidating, but that falls flat when people just keep blowing them up. Nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent precisely because defending against them or defeating their launch platforms are so difficult, especially in large numbers.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by morbosfist View Post
              He makes that point right at the start. It's supposed to be intimidating, but that falls flat when people just keep blowing them up. Nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent precisely because defending against them or defeating their launch platforms are so difficult, especially in large numbers.
              Yes, for purposes of the SW story the idea of the death star is constantly foiled, but to relate it to a "real world" device, the Death Star is much like a Aircraft carrier, it projects "POWER". An Aircraft carrier has the sheer firepower to do obscene amounts of damage, either by its own missile systems, or by the aircraft it holds andthier weapons. If countries could "routinely" blow up carrier groups, they would not exist either, would they??
              Oh, hang on, they do, and have been for years.
              sigpic
              ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
              A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
              The truth isn't the truth

              Comment


                #8
                But that's just it--an aircraft carrier isn't comparable. That's not a military device that has only been constructed twice, being destroyed in short order both times by a group of underequipped amateurs.
                "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

                Comment


                  #9
                  China claims it does have a weapon that can blow up large ships.

                  But you know what? The US has these weapons too. They're called cruise missiles.

                  But large ships just do not compare to the Death Star. Sorry.

                  And the Death Star II was fully operational, but it was not completed in construction. If the construction was completed I'm sure the Empire would've done things like to make the vents more crooked and and to add shields in multiple points to overcome this weakness.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The design flaw with the Death Star was stated on-screen: a bad assumption. The assumption that anyone/thing attacking it would be doing so with massive vessels, not single-pilot sized "fighters". Despite the fact that the Emperor's (artificial) right-hand "man" had himself (aged nine) destroyed a clone army command vessel in such a single pilot vessel.

                    However, a really, really accurately aimed set of missiles from any perpendicularly attacking ship would seem to have had the same capability... so beneath the stated reason is the huge flaw of a single vent shaft going all the way, largely undefended, to something volatile. Bad design or bad assumption? Both?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Quizziard View Post
                      The design flaw with the Death Star was stated on-screen: a bad assumption. The assumption that anyone/thing attacking it would be doing so with massive vessels, not single-pilot sized "fighters".
                      Indeed, and this has become a particularly relevant metaphor for the realities of modern warfare. Virtually every major industrialized nation still invests obscene amounts of money into militaries designed to fight in the kinds of wars we fought in the last century. As evidenced by numerous events--in particular, terrorist attacks worldwide--a new kind of war is emerging as the dominant style of the modern age.

                      Certainly traditional militaries will never disappear completely. But so much of what exists now is based on the false predicate that 'our big scary war machine will be better than their big scary war machine', when much of the time the new reality is that while Captain America is standing tall on the lookout for Red Skull, some kid comes along and kicks him in the nuts.
                      "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by DigiFluid View Post
                        But that's just it--an aircraft carrier isn't comparable. That's not a military device that has only been constructed twice, being destroyed in short order both times by a group of underequipped amateurs.
                        I was only talking in terms of "projecting power" Digi, nothing else.
                        sigpic
                        ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.
                        A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yet
                        The truth isn't the truth

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by DigiFluid View Post
                          But that's just it--an aircraft carrier isn't comparable. That's not a military device that has only been constructed twice, being destroyed in short order both times by a group of underequipped amateurs.
                          Actually Digi, there is one military device that fits this criteria: the battleship.
                          And to be more precise Yamato and Musashi.
                          All battleships have thick armour, have big guns, are very heavy and very expensive. Both Yamato and Musashi had a weight of about 70 000 metric tons each. This means that at least 140 000 tonnes of steel were used. That's a lot resources.
                          So is the Death Star. To build a 160 km structure and later a 900 km one requires a lot of resources. Any resources used in war must be cost effective. This means that if you built a weapon that can only do one be used for one role (surface combatant for Yamato/blow up planets for the Death Star) and not so good for the rest (escort =during the Battle of Atlantic, the British battleships were ineffective at protecting the convoys=, aircraft carrier for Yamato/escort =the Death Star doesn't escort the fleet, the fleet escorts the Death Star in the best case scenario=, space combat =except for RotJ where Palpetine wanted to humiliate the Rebels, using the Death Star to destroy ships is like using an excavator-jackhammer to break an egg= for the Death Star) is a bad idea. The very main problem is asymmetric warfare.
                          In a conventional naval war, battleships shoot each other until one hits a critical spot of the other (ex: the weapon magazine) and wins. In an unconventional battle, torpedoes, planes and bombers are used against the enemy battleship, while your fleet is at a safe distance. Without an excelent anti-air defence the battleship has no chance. This was true for Yamato and Musashi. Musashi had no air cover and its anti-air batteries were easily overwhelmed. Yamato also had no air cover and was easily destroyed by 400 US aircrafts. Both went off in a big boom. Kind of like the Death Star. In both cases, the destruction was caused by hitting a weak spot: At Musashi, the american pilots exploited the armor deficiencies near the bow, slowing the ship and then overwhelmed it with 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes. In case of Yamato, after being heavily damaged the fire reached the main weapon magazine and exploded.
                          When the Rebels attacked the Death Star they only used a handful of fighters. Since only a small number of ships managed to destroy a huge superstructure, then we have a problem. In WW2 we have the same situation. Expensive and complex machineries were easily destroyed by smaller and cheaper weapons. In case of naval warfare, makeshift aircraft carriers from either cruisers or freighters that carried simple war planes were acceptable losses compared to superlarge battleships that consumed too many resources. On land we have the T-34 that, compared to other tanks was very primitive, but simple, very cheap and acceptable losses.

                          If I bored you so far, let me put it simple: expensive and resource consuming weapons are very risky, not acceptable losses and require a lot of manpower, while the makeshift ones (asymmetric warfare) are much easier to mantain, cheaper and the risk of loss is acceptable.
                          I do agree though that both the battleships and the Death Stars are good at one thing: they are good at striking fear in the enemy. But that's pretty much it.
                          It's all about startegy. Out-maneuvering the opposition, bending him to your will.
                          -Dexter-

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by SGSargon View Post
                            If I bored you so far, let me put it simple: expensive and resource consuming weapons are very risky, not acceptable losses and require a lot of manpower, while the makeshift ones (asymmetric warfare) are much easier to mantain, cheaper and the risk of loss is acceptable.

                            I do agree though that both the battleships and the Death Stars are good at one thing: they are good at striking fear in the enemy. But that's pretty much it.
                            Yes...thank you for simply reiterating the original piece
                            "A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After Life

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Yeah, well I had so many ideas going through my head that I didn't even know where to begin...so I just wrote what came first
                              It's all about startegy. Out-maneuvering the opposition, bending him to your will.
                              -Dexter-

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X