I was reading this thread:
Which is a better design: death star (sphere) or Borg cube?
At first, I figured that the sphere would be a better design, but is it really?
One would not have to worry about aerodynamics and the cube would be easier to build ( if it was a continuous “add-on” project )
What do you think?
The Borg cube was self-reparing, kinda, but either of them could have been taken out with a good-sized thermonuke. Simple geometry favours the sphere, though - maximized volume with a minimal amount of structural material.
This is unanswerable, you know.
In space, a sphere is a good design because it maximizes strength (or minimizes syurface area) against any given possible angle of attack. However, The Death Star was so massive is was probably spherical also because its own gravity would distort the shape otherwise. But anyway, making a spaceship spherical isn’t a bad idea.
But it’s not neccessary. The Star Destroyer shape (wedge) is also a military classic. It makes things harder to hit against the front face, and against glancing attacks from that direction is actually much better than the sphere. So if your combat doctrine revolves around heading straight at the enemy with a punishing head-on assault, it’s good.
The cube, I suppose,could be used for massive fire in all directions. It wouldn’t great, mind you, because there’s no real advantage to it over the sphere in space except maybe more possible firing platforms. But then, borg ships barely qualify as actual space ships. They were more like wandering forcefields with some equipment stuff inside.
:dubious:
The Death Star was the size of a small moon. Yes, if you shot said nuke down a small, unguarded thermal exhaust port, yeah, but still it’s not exactly going to go down from any other hit.
I doubt that. The DS is 120 - 160 kilometers of super-tough unobtainium, while the original Cube survived with moderate damage an attack with antimatter warheads ( photon torpedoes ), before adapting to resist them.
Not that I recall the Borg ever having much in the way of tactics, but you could attack in a cubical ship by pointing a corner at the enemy.
With the advantages of modular expansion, as mentioned by MTRG in the OP, I think I’m going to change my initial choice and end up in favor of the cube.
We discussed this in the “How much would it cost toe build a Death Star?” thread, but to sum up, a Death Star would have very, very little gravity. I figured at least two million times less than the Earth, which is close enough to weightlessness to assume it away.
The Death Star is “The size of a small moon” in the sense that if it was a moon of a planet it wouldn’t be one you’d ever heard of. Our Moon is about five million cubic miles in volume; the Death Star, assuming a diameter of 100 miles, is about 500 times less voluminous and a LOT less dense, since most of it is empty space.
Sure, if your primary attack consists of poking the enemy’s eye out.
I stand by my nuke comment. The Death Star suffered minor local damage when damaged X-Wings simply crashed into it. A good thermonuke would do the same, but several orders of magnitude higher, though I admit the vaguely defined “shields” might mean the pilots would have to get suicidally close before launching their missiles. Anyway, if you want to blunt the DH’s main weapon, just ding that giant parabolic dish. This has the secondary effect of undermining Imperial morale, as they will no longer be able to retransmit major league baseball without express written consent.
Fact is, the damage inflicted by torpedoes used in both fictional universes is just for dramatic purposes, as powerful or as futile as the story requires. If the Enterprise or the Rebel Alliance would condescend to use something as mundane and primitive as an H-Bomb, they’d be home by lunch.
Bolding mine.
Isn’t this what makes the Cube a better design? After a couple of attempts with whatever attack you can think of, the Borg adapt and you need to think of something else.
Trenches aside, a sphere has no dead angles as long as the guns fortifying it has a good enough depression angle. While a cube does - weapon yield would be minimized simply by attacking at a right angle to one of the flat walls.
Put it another way; a sphere would have an angle coverage of downwards of 180 degrees, depending on distance, or roughly 50% of it’s weaponry at any given time. A cube attacked at a right angle to the central point of one of it’s walls would have 1/6 of its’ weapons pointing your way. (Presuming that your attack vessel was a smaller size than the cube.)
If the attacking vessel is too small, though, it can just zip over the surface at will and your slow tower guns won’t be able to track it.
For a nice illustration, visit Jeff Russel’s Starship Dimensions and click on the -2000x tab, then scroll down most of the way. You’ll find both Death Stars - with the Moon as a backdrop to give you an idea of size.
According to Star Trek lore, a photon torpedo is ~64 megatons, which is more powerful than any weapon we’ve so far detonated (although, IIRC, the Soviet design for the 50 Mtonne bomb was capable of twice that). I presume that an antimatter device such as a photon torpedo should be far more capable than any thermonuclear device of comparable size. Am I missing something?
Yeah, but Star Trek lore is notoriously unreliable, what with being evil and all. A torpedo hits a Borg cube and very litle happens. Somebody beams aboard the Borg drone and fires a hand-phaser and lots of stuff happens, at least at the local level, with sparks and smoke and junk. So why not beam a nuke into the cube?
Small-scale explosions are shown damaging the various ships all the time, with lots of shots of extras in hallways yelling as flaming debris goes flying all around them. If that’s the effect of a 64-megaton nuke, it can only be because that hallway is five miles from the impact point, with everything closer being utterly destroyed. Heck, a photon torp hit the shields-less Reliant during the nebula battle in Star Trek II and only blew off one of its “feet”.
I don’t have a problem with dramatic license. If the weapons can destroy a city in one episode but only scratch an enemy ship in another episode because the individual stories required such, I can live with it. But if one’s going to have a semi-serious discussion on the theoretical capabilities and weaknesses of these vessels if they were actually built, then I gotta inject some reality.
Dammit! I was just about to link to that. The DS is really pretty puny compared to our moon. Hard to believe that thing could destroy a full-sized planet.
Aren’t aerodynamics irrelevant in space? As I recall, neither the Death Star nor a Borg cube were designed for entry into a planetary atmosphere. Both were designed to enter within orbital range and do their dirty work from there. In the case of the Death Star, to destroy planets and space going defense fleets. If stormtroopers needed to go to a planet’s surface (to track droids or terrorize Ewoks :D), they would descend in a shuttle.
In the case of the Borg cube, drones were transported to a planet’s surface to assimilate the population. The cube would use a laser-type cutting beam to blast chunks out of the planet to assimilate its bulk for raw materials. And it would send viruses into the planet’s computer systems to ferret out all of its technological and cultural knowledge. No atmospheric entry or landings necessary.
Oh, you don’t have to convince me of the willful ignorance of physics on the part of the Star Trek writers, by any stretch of the imagination. I just meant that if you have anti-matter based technology, you already have a weapon much more effective than a thermonuclear device.
You RC - Tsar Bomba was tested as a scaled-down version of a 100MT device, partly to let the bomber crew get away from it and partly because the smaller weapon could be made much “cleaner”, which was an important consideration even when testing it out in the arse-end of nowhere (which if you look it up in the dictionary you will indeed find illustrated by a picture of Novaya Zemlya).
Thanks, Gukumatz, this is one of the best all around reasons for the sphere over the cube.
It has to get to the surface first.