|
Cost of an Imperial-I star destroyer
| |
| Tremaine_Fowlkes | Date: Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012, 11:29 AM | Message # 1 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 881
Status: Offline
| Does anyone know the actual cost? When I look wookieepedia up, it mentioned that it costs 20 times more than a Nebulon-B frigate. I also looked Imperial II star destroyer. It costs 145,670,000. I'm assuming it's somewhere a little lower than that?
Tremaine Fowlkes
Senator of Telos IV
|
| |
| |
| Jace_Varitek | Date: Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012, 7:19 PM | Message # 2 |
 Generalissimo
Group: Administrators
Messages: 2245
Status: Offline
| Here's a selection of quotes from the internets about the cost of a Star Destroyer.
Quote "A single Imperial-class vessel cost the Empire at least 3,880,000,000 Imperial credits—the equivalent of several star systems' annual economic output."
Quote "A single Imperial-class vessel cost the Empire more than twenty times the cost of a EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate, which was the equivalent of several star systems' annual economic output."
Quote "The Far Orbit Project, page 126, second paragraph. A Nebulon-B costs about 9 million credits. This contrasts the earlier Strike Force: Shantipole, which had it at 194 million credits."
According to the above, the cost is either 180,000,000 or 3,880,000,000. 3 billion is rather low for a star system's annual economic output, however. But wait, there's more...
Quote "The price is ABSURDLY high, quite frankly. The first edition of WOTC 'Starships of the Galaxy' has the Imperial II priced at 145,670,000 credits. There's no way an Imperial I is worth over 26 times its successor ship."
Quote "What are you talking about? 26 times it's successor? It says 20 times that of an EF76 Nebulon-B Escort. That is priced at 19,400,000 Credits, which put this ship at 388,000,000 Credits. Not 3,787,420,000 Credits."
One site I found says the following:
Quote "Market Cost: 60 billion credits to construct"
For the record, aircraft carriers cost about $5 to $6 billion.
So there you go. Pretty clear-cut situation.
Jace Varitek
Manager/Administrator from January 2003 to Present
My recent posts here, pre-2009 archives here
"When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
—John Maynard Keynes
Furthermore, a dancing Wookiee:
|
| |
| |
| Karth_DeQora | Date: Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012, 7:22 PM | Message # 3 |
 Colonel general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1157
Status: Offline
| It costs $42.99 USD.
... I've no idea, man.
Man, Myth, Administrative God. Also plays a mean kazoo.
Jace Varitek: In Northern California we just have gangs of vigilante interior decorators.
|
| |
| |
| Jaron | Date: Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012, 8:38 PM | Message # 4 |
 Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 252
Status: Offline
| I would like to point out, that it is a common error to assume that one credit equals one dollar. Aside from the possibility that monetary value is far different from our current understanding in consideration of this being a galactic currency rather than national, belief of such would equate to believing one dollar MUST equal one Euro.
Anyways, to throw my two cents in, it costs several million to billion of credits in the range of Jace's above sourced estimations; although it looks like some of it is off the talk page of the Wookieepedia article in regards to cost... and I honestly completely disregard that aspect of Wookieepedia to be perfectly honest.
So the long and short is 180,000,000 - 3,880,000,000 credits.
Jaron Park
Manager from June 2009 to Present, Administrator from December 2011 to Present
(pre-April 2012 posts) (post-April 2012 posts)
Pre-2009 Archives
|
| |
| |
| Jace_Varitek | Date: Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012, 9:34 PM | Message # 5 |
|
Generalissimo
Group: Administrators
Messages: 2245
Status: Offline
| This, however, leaves unsolved the problem of the "annual economic output." Indeed, one credit doesn't equal one dollar, so you can half-explain it that way. But the other half is that you can equate, approximately, what the value of a credit is to the value of a dollar. I'm sure people have done this on the internet so I won't here, but for example, you can look at the cost of a glass of whiskey on Wookieepedia and compare it to the cost of whiskey in dollars, and I think the dollar ends up being worth about .25 to .50 cents on the credit.
So, using the 3.88 billion value for the Star Destroyer—and the "annual economic output of several star systems"—are we saying that these star systems only produce a mere $970 million over a year? Hell, Mitt Romney's gotta be worth more than that.
Mind you, I'm being the devil's advocate here. I do have a theory to explain this; namely, planets just might not be that profitable. Consider the Earth—we're stretching our planet's resources thin just to try (unsuccessfully) to feed and shelter the 8 billion people here. If Earth were part of an interplanetary economy, would it really have much to export to other planets? The problem may be even greater on Star Wars planets, which by-and-large have far greater populations than Earth. Yes, the technology i.e. power sources is superior, but the Star Wars galaxy is not a post-scarcity society; indeed, "haves" and "have-nots" are a staple of Star Wars going all the way back to the Mos Eisley cantina.
That's my take, anyway. Tentatively, since I've never really subjected this idea to scrutiny. But it could explain why, in the Star Destroyer figure, the "annual economic output of several star systems" seems surprisingly low to us, because we think of planets like nations on Earth that trade with one another, rather than planets with very, very limited resources.
Jace Varitek
Manager/Administrator from January 2003 to Present
My recent posts here, pre-2009 archives here
"When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
—John Maynard Keynes
Furthermore, a dancing Wookiee:
|
| |
| |
| Jaron | Date: Thursday, 09 Aug 2012, 8:36 AM | Message # 6 |
|
Major general
Group: Administrators
Messages: 252
Status: Offline
| There are probably several star systems that are profitable... but not most. Aside from the Core, it is far more common to see worlds of only a billion or so or less, with less being most common; thus with an even smaller workforce, you have less available to work on producing surplus goods. I would say it's the cost of several star systems based upon the average economic output of star systems. I'm merely adding to the idea of your theory here Jace, as I can agree to the sentiment.
Jaron Park
Manager from June 2009 to Present, Administrator from December 2011 to Present
(pre-April 2012 posts) (post-April 2012 posts)
Pre-2009 Archives
|
| |
| |
|
