I had no idea.
How could I sleep at night?
It doesn't make any sense, of course: why waste more resources on a Death Star six times (roughly speaking, I'm ball parking) the size of the first one to do the exact same thing? It already had a planet destroying laser. Six times the diameter means the volume is cubed, so 216 times the volume of material.
And it would be much slower rotating that big superlaser to fire on attacking ships. Why not just attack it from the side where the super laser, you know, isn't?
It makes no sense.
But this is the wrong question to ask when it comes to Star Wars.
Cool uber alles, and big, impressive planet destroying superlaser space stations are cool. Maybe The Emperor really was that immature. Or the Galactic Military Industrial Complex was more concerned with slush contracts than military efficacy...
Other than the Death Star, though, the gigantic Star Wars vessels (Star Destroyers, Super Duper Deluxe Star Destroyers, etc) are actually diminutive compared to other franchises, particularly Halo, which has a bad case of scale-creep gigantism.
And what the heck is Mass Effect, anyway?
But back to the Death Star. I mean... look at the size comparison. Yes, these questions are so irrelevant they make Latin look like a practical study choice, but still, this is important.
|Look, the military industrial complex needs contracts. Let's use 216 times the material for the next Death Star.|