Paradox please. Can we destroy stars & planets?

[Chat]

Empire at War politely informed me of what I would do given a planet destroying weapon and an opponent. Turns out I'm a monster. I invariably tire of stationing several AT-ATs on every world to protect the people and end up deploying the Death Star and simply annihilating the majority of the Outer Rim Systems controlled by the rebel scum and pirates. If the people didn't want to get blown up, they wouldn't have let a bunch of outlaws control them.

I'm certainly all for embracing the Tarkin Doctrine in Stellaris, and building (impractical) devices of planetary destruction to enforce it.

Didn't scientists say that warpdrive, even IF it were possible to get our tech that far, even IF a ship could withstand all the physical shebang around it, would fry the destination completely. Something about the billions tons of space dust that would get picked up on the flight and then suddenly get released when it stops. Dont cite me on this, thats some faint memory, but the gist is that warp drive would fuck up the point of destination real good due to the forces involved.

Somebody did, since I remember seeing the same thing, but I don't know if they were actually scientists in a relevant field, or that they really thought it through properly. The problem with that idea is that it relies on material accumulating on/in the warp bubble and getting brought along for the ride, yet not 'stopping' when everything else does. If it's getting on the edge of the warp bubble, then unless there's a dust trap it would slide off. If there is a dust trap, how does the dust travel faster than light without being inside the warp bubble? It would then have to be violating the speed of light. If it slips into the warp bubble, then it's going to be subject to same shift as the spaceship. When the bubble stops moving, why would the dust go flying out at faster than/near light speeds?

How exactly do you end up collecting billions of tons of dust too? Even assuming that there's plenty of material between you and your destination, why would it just keep accumulating on the front of the warp bubble? Inside could work, but then wouldn't then go shooting off when you stop. Even assuming it is a problem, the solution would probably be as simple as "don't make a jump that ends too close and pointing directly at a planet." The dust blast and any radiation is would only have so much range after all, and simply making a few shorter jumps when approaching a planet could be all that's needed to alleviate the problem, assuming no-one just builds the intergalactic version of windscreen wipers.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Oh no problem with destroying a star system, you just have to manipulate the path of a neutron star to a collision course...

Or just sent it by a wormwhole

 

[Flamingo-Sini]

Somebody did, since I remember seeing the same thing, but I don't know if they were actually scientists in a relevant field, or that they really thought it through properly. The problem with that idea is that it relies on material accumulating on/in the warp bubble and getting brought along for the ride, yet not 'stopping' when everything else does. If it's getting on the edge of the warp bubble, then unless there's a dust trap it would slide off. If there is a dust trap, how does the dust travel faster than light without being inside the warp bubble? It would then have to be violating the speed of light. If it slips into the warp bubble, then it's going to be subject to same shift as the spaceship. When the bubble stops moving, why would the dust go flying out at faster than/near light speeds?

How exactly do you end up collecting billions of tons of dust too? Even assuming that there's plenty of material between you and your destination, why would it just keep accumulating on the front of the warp bubble? Inside could work, but then wouldn't then go shooting off when you stop. Even assuming it is a problem, the solution would probably be as simple as "don't make a jump that ends too close and pointing directly at a planet." The dust blast and any radiation is would only have so much range after all, and simply making a few shorter jumps when approaching a planet could be all that's needed to alleviate the problem, assuming no-one just builds the intergalactic version of windscreen wipers.

Good questions. We would have to look at the original thing again i guess.

 

[monsterfurby]

(Warning, post contains spoilers for the Wing Commander series, Freespace 2, the novel Ender's Game and the TV show Babylon 5)

Just like nuclear weapons are more of a side-path rather than a natural stepping stone towards becoming an interplanetary power, planet killers aren't necessarily the pinnacle of military evolution in space. However, there's more than one way to skin a cat, or planet, in this case.

I'm all for being able to apply various and creative methods of destroying worlds. As was mentioned before (via the Tarkin Doctrine), the main purpose of such a move is not necessarily to deny the planet to an enemy (you could do that through invasion), but to snuff out any thought of resistance within your own borders. Star Wars Rebellion represented this quite well: using the Death Star basically eliminated most resistance in planets that were sufficiently garrisoned, but at the same time insta-flipped all those that weren't to the rebellion (of course, once the initial shock subsided, more worlds would turn and rebel).

Beside the classic "planet-killer"/"star-killer" weapon, there should also be straight-up depopulation weapons - be they just 1000 nukes swarming down on a planet, wiping out all life on its surface (we have the technology and means for that already, ain't that a pretty thought?) or something akin to WH40k's various Exterminatus variants.

Remember that there are also (arguably) heroic examples of planet-killers being used - think Ender's Game or Wing Commander III (the latter having two separate variations even), where these were used as a last-resort weapon by the protagonist (knowingly or unknowingly), and also instances where they weren't used for genocide but simply to cut off a crucial enemy supply route (Capella in Freespace 2). And then of course there's the variant where powers have evolved so far that individual systems don't even matter and denying allies and resources to the enemy is more of a political move. Did someone say Vorlons and Shadows from Babylon 5?

So yeah, I think there's plenty of strategic depth to be derived from planet-killers. It's not just a matter of straight-up destruction, there should always be a tradeoff involved, and different empires in different situations should react differently. Colonel Blair and Ender Wiggin may be heroes since their civilizations had their backs to the wall against an (again, arguably) superior enemy, but Grand Moff Tarkin falls solidly on the evil end of the spectrum because he used the Death Star from a position of power.

 

[Isimiel]

Please Paradox =3

 

[monsterfurby]

Please Paradox =3

Hey GTVA, we herd u liek Sathanas, so we brought sum Sathanases.

Love,
The Shivans

 

[beckermt]

Empire at War politely informed me of what I would do given a planet destroying weapon and an opponent. Turns out I'm a monster. I invariably tire of stationing several AT-ATs on every world to protect the people and end up deploying the Death Star and simply annihilating the majority of the Outer Rim Systems controlled by the rebel scum and pirates. If the people didn't want to get blown up, they wouldn't have let a bunch of outlaws control them.

I'm certainly all for embracing the Tarkin Doctrine in Stellaris, and building (impractical) devices of planetary destruction to enforce it.



Somebody did, since I remember seeing the same thing, but I don't know if they were actually scientists in a relevant field, or that they really thought it through properly. The problem with that idea is that it relies on material accumulating on/in the warp bubble and getting brought along for the ride, yet not 'stopping' when everything else does. If it's getting on the edge of the warp bubble, then unless there's a dust trap it would slide off. If there is a dust trap, how does the dust travel faster than light without being inside the warp bubble? It would then have to be violating the speed of light. If it slips into the warp bubble, then it's going to be subject to same shift as the spaceship. When the bubble stops moving, why would the dust go flying out at faster than/near light speeds?

How exactly do you end up collecting billions of tons of dust too? Even assuming that there's plenty of material between you and your destination, why would it just keep accumulating on the front of the warp bubble? Inside could work, but then wouldn't then go shooting off when you stop. Even assuming it is a problem, the solution would probably be as simple as "don't make a jump that ends too close and pointing directly at a planet." The dust blast and any radiation is would only have so much range after all, and simply making a few shorter jumps when approaching a planet could be all that's needed to alleviate the problem, assuming no-one just builds the intergalactic version of windscreen wipers.

I feel that the exact mechanics of your FTL travel would be relevant. If you're in warpy bubble (Alcubierre) then the dust will accumulate at a "normal" rate relative to the volume of space you're scooping out, but once it leaves the bubble it won't be travelling SUPER FAST because you are yourself not travelling SUPER FAST, just that the space you're travelling into is quite compressed.

Wormholes: No issue at all.
Warp (40k style, i.e. travel through another dimension): No issues stemming from realspace.
Hyperlands: ... who knows? Are the hyperlanes protected bubbles of space that are clean? Are you in real space? Without actual information, we can't judge.

 

[Bacus]

You cannot kill a star by adding Iron, at least not in the "supernova-right-now way"

 

[208]

Why would destroying the star destroy the hyperlanes?

There aren't any hyperlanes to places in the galaxy without stars - therefore it's a reasonable assumption that something about or correlated with the stars themselves is necessary for the hyperlane to exist.

Well suns are just giant reactors. If you understand the principals behind it sufficient you should be able to make them go critical aka explode.

(Normal) Stars are already self-sustaining chain reactions, so they are already "critical" and in a constant state of explosion.

 

[Franconian]

Please Paradox =3

Nevar forget

 

[Teleros]

Give me planet-sized anti-matter bombs or give me (some other means of inflicting) death!

Personally I've always been partial to the Lensman books and their superweapons:

1. A planet-sized anti-matter bomb (see above).
2. Two planets with opposite velocities used as a "nutcracker" on the target planet.
3. Turning a star into a colossal energy beam to fry multiple shielded planets at once.
4. Launching a planet from an alternate reality where objects can go FTL without any FTL wizardry.

What else... turning planets into Iain M Banks' Culture Orbitals would be an evil way too. One planet destroyed = a dozen new giant worlds for your people to inhabit in its place .

 

[Botox]

Give me planet-sized anti-matter bombs or give me (some other means of inflicting) death!

Personally I've always been partial to the Lensman books and their superweapons:

1. A planet-sized anti-matter bomb (see above).
2. Two planets with opposite velocities used as a "nutcracker" on the target planet.
3. Turning a star into a colossal energy beam to fry multiple shielded planets at once.
4. Launching a planet from an alternate reality where objects can go FTL without any FTL wizardry.

What else... turning planets into Iain M Banks' Culture Orbitals would be an evil way too. One planet destroyed = a dozen new giant worlds for your people to inhabit in its place .

No... just no.

 

[Highlordelliot]

For when you absolutely positively need to blow up the entire solar system to be sure

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

The problem I see is every method to destroy a star would inevitably destroy all the planets too (either fling them into deep space or fry them to a crisp in a cleansing bath of gamma radiation). Which means that it might be harder to balance or tweak to get just right.

From a game mechanics position, destroying a planet should be easier. Convert all livable terrain slots (whether inhabited or not) to uninhabitable terrain. Orbital stations should still be able to "mine" non-biological resources from the charred remains. In fact, even if it isn't included I bet a mod has this working day one of release. Sure you won't get the satisfaction of a cloud or orbiting debris, but the point has still been made.

 

[Teleros]

No... just no.

Meanie .

The problem I see is every method to destroy a star would inevitably destroy all the planets too (either fling them into deep space or fry them to a crisp in a cleansing bath of gamma radiation). Which means that it might be harder to balance or tweak to get just right.

Not necessarily: it depends on the tech level and such, basically. Assuming you have shields and enough power for them, causing a star to explode or w/e wouldn't necessarily wipe out all civilised life on the orbiting planets...

A Type 1a Supernova emits roughly 1.5e44 Joules.

Half the surface area of Earth is 255 million square kilometres.

A sphere with a radius of 1 AU would have a surface area of 2.81e11 million square kilometres.

That energy over that much surface area = 5.34e32 Joules per million square kilometres, so Earth would be hit by 1.36e35 Joules.

That is several orders of magnitude weaker than a single Death Star shot (around 1e38 Joules to destroy an Earth-like Alderaan)*.

In other words, if you can get up to Star Wars levels of power generation and shield technology, you should be able to protect your planet from a supernova (of course it's even easier if your further away than Earth). Creating an artificial sun or a facsimile of your original one might be useful to prevent g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ climate change, but and I suppose the navigation charts might need updating as you leave orbit, but at this point you can probably fix that too if you really want to.

There may be other methods as well. If you can generate large wormholes on demand, you can simply open one up between your planet and the star, and dump all the oncoming energy somewhere else. Various other technobabble solutions are also no doubt possible. For the real world though, I don't think anything short of a massive physical barrier (eg another planet) would save you...



*Fun fact: if you examine the frames closely, Alderaan appears to have a planetary shield that briefly resists the Death Star's shot. Wow.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

>snip<

Couple issues - first, Earth is hit with 3.84e24 Joules every YEAR from the sun. That's total energy not reflected back into space. You're talking about something thirty-five billion times more powerful hitting the Earth in a few miliseconds. I'm not talking about blowing up the planet - I'm talking about frying it in a wave of gamma radiation. Remember that gamma ray bursts even many light years away pose a threat to our planet if aim directly for us.

Secondly, the sudden change in mass at the center of the solar system poses a problem for the continued orbit of a planet. If the sun was replaced by something of the same mass, sure Earth would keep going around the center as if nothing changed (ignoring the sudden and permanent never-ending night which would leave the planet a frozen husk) but if it loses a large amount of matter (i.e. explodes) the Earth would drift away. And if it gained mass (i.e. you created a blackhole at its center) the Earth would drift inward, potentially being exposed to greater amounts of radiation.

Both scenarios leave Earth intact as a giant rock in space, one doesn't even give us a chance to escape, and the other would require a mass exodus or for us to quickly overhaul our way of life from top to bottom.

 

[sterrius]

if we're talking about a planet surviving a supernova any rock planet will survive it, sure they will be schorched and thrown away from orbit and maybe lose a good % of its size as the heat will make the planet become partially a gas clouse but it will survive.

Earth was hit by a planet with the size of mars and it only got more mass and the moon as a gift.

And if we actually go science fiction a death star would pierce the planet from one side to another creating two super vulcanos that would wipe out the whole life on the planet, but otherwise the rock planet would still be in place.

Gas planets are another trouble. The only thing keeping them intact is gravity and gas is very easy to disperse if you put some force against it. Those are going to lose a lot of gas and maybe the only thing surviving will be the small rock core of the gas giant.


Just for fun.

To destroy earth you need.

"If you do the lengthy calculations you find that to liberate that much energy is equivalent to the complete annihilation of around 1,246,400,000,000 tonnes of antimatter. That's assuming zero energy loss to heat, neutrinos and radiation, which is unlikely to be the case in reality: You'll probably need to up the dose by at least a factor of twenty."

and earth is considered a small planet.

 

[hyeondrugs]

Its an interesting option. For multiplayer, a guy thats going to lose could do an all out kamikaze attack on an important planet to render the person who killed him much weaker . Could be used to obliterate a planet with important resources that the enemy can not replace easily due to distance from other planets with the resource. In a sense as well, you could do a quick war with a nation, obliterate the planets with a resource in which you already have a bunch of but the enemy does not. So then you would not have any occupations with the nation and then force them to buy your goods and keep monopolies to grow rich. I'd like the option in a mod at the least. More choices in planning is what I like.

 

[Teleros]

Couple issues

In case I wasn't clear, my assumptions in my post were that (a) the entire energy output of a Type 1a supernova would occur instantly (unlikely, I don't think they work like that given how long we can measure them for), and that you had energy shield tech that could be scaled up enough to absorb all the energy released by the supernova that hits the Earth.

IF you can do that (a feat which requires Star Wars / high-end space opera energy levels), then you can can indeed survive a supernova going off next door. Compared to that feat, moving the planet back into a stable orbit is a trivial challenge.

Remember that gamma ray bursts even many light years away pose a threat to our planet if aim directly for us.

Yes, but we don't have technobabble energy shields, as I pointed out in my post.

As far as I'm aware, the only vaguely realistic way to protect a planet from a nearby GRB, supernova etc is to stick another planet in the way.

Somehow.

Secondly, the sudden change in mass at the center of the solar system poses a problem for the continued orbit of a planet. If the sun was replaced by something of the same mass, sure Earth would keep going around the center as if nothing changed (ignoring the sudden and permanent never-ending night which would leave the planet a frozen husk) but if it loses a large amount of matter (i.e. explodes) the Earth would drift away. And if it gained mass (i.e. you created a blackhole at its center) the Earth would drift inward, potentially being exposed to greater amounts of radiation.

The Earth would be moved even if the Sun never lost any mass, because of the sheer pressure of the radiation and/or gases expelled during the supernova. So either way you're going to want to do something about Earth's orbit.

For the record, 1e35 Joules, assuming it's pure radiation (ie photons, not charged particles etc) would hit Earth with 3.33e26 Newtons of force. Earth weighs on the order of 1e24kg, and 1 Newton = accelerating 1kg of mass at 1m/s/s. Which incidentally means the shield generators above need some hilariously good shock absorbers / inertial dampeners, otherwise your planet will still be destroyed by the supernova .

However, if you're in a situation where you can safely dispose of 1e35 Joules of energy and the associated momentum, you can just strap some honking great big rockets (or even lasers) on your planet and move it to wherever the heck you want. At this point you don't really even need a star: just make an artificial one in orbit and go swanning off through the galaxy.

Sure, I'm rather attached to Sol and the other planets and would hate to leave them behind, but that's besides the point: at the energy levels being thrown about here, moving planets is a viable option.

And if we actually go science fiction a death star would pierce the planet from one side to another creating two super vulcanos that would wipe out the whole life on the planet, but otherwise the rock planet would still be in place.

Probably. I've always been surprised that there was no over-penetration of Alderaan. Nearest I've seen to this on tape is from Master of Orion 2:

Just for fun.

To destroy earth you need.

"If you do the lengthy calculations you find that to liberate that much energy is equivalent to the complete annihilation of around 1,246,400,000,000 tonnes of antimatter. That's assuming zero energy loss to heat, neutrinos and radiation, which is unlikely to be the case in reality: You'll probably need to up the dose by at least a factor of twenty."

and earth is considered a small planet.

I think a better way is Mike Wong's method from Stardestroyer.net. Work out the gravitational binding energy of the planet (for Alderaan / Earth, 2.4e32 Joules) as a bare minimum. You need that just to scatter the mass of the planet enough to prevent it re-forming. This is the bare minimum of course, because you won't get 100% efficiency (eg over-penetration) etc:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar.html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Alderaan.html

Using anti-matter is bad, because as you note, a lot of the energy from matter-anti-matter annihilation is in the form of neutrinos (I think around 30%), which does sod all for purposes of explodey goodness. Furthermore, if you have an anti-Earth hitting Earth, the point of contact will be an explosion, which will put pressure on both planets, which will tend to push them away from each other, etc etc etc. Easier I think to just work out how much energy is required, then leave it up to others to decide how they want to add said energy to the planet in question.

(As an aside, the equations aren't really lengthy, because for anti-matter you just need E=MC^2 until you reach the 2.4e32J number, or Google "mass of Earth in kg" for how much anti-matter you'd need to completely destroy the Earth . It's only lengthy if you want to factor in all the complicated inefficiencies, such as neutrinos and such.)

 

[Thel 'Vadam]

This please!